Attachment 2-Technical Evaluation Criteria 21-002304.pdf

EVALUATION /AWARD CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed below. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In any case, the

Government reserves the right to make an award to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. An objective technical evaluation will be performed on each offeror’s proposal based solely on the information furnished.

APPROACH

1. Technical Proposal:

a. The offeror will be evaluated on their ability to provide the most versatility of genetic testing in at least 7 of the 10 required categories in section 2.2 (Deliverables) of the statement of work (SOW).

b. The offeror will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate sufficient data storage capabilities.

c. The quality of testing will be evaluated based on the ability of the offeror to show the availability of sequencing the entire coding region of each gene listed, and non-coding regions if known to be disease relevant. It will also be judged on whether state-of-the art test methodologies and instrumentation exists, and the capability to provide extensive data on test performance upon request.

d. The technical expertise of the offeror’s board certified staff will be evaluated by examining resumes and biographies provided in the offeror’s proposal.

e. Evidence of how NIH IT security requirements specified in the SOW will be supported by the offeror. This includes, but is not limited to, protection of Personally Identifiable Indicators

(PII), Personal Health Information (PHI) and sensitive data, and a description of how the results will be transmitted electronically to the NIH CC Department of Laboratory Medicine.

f. Evidence of how the 120-day post-award requirement for interfacing the offeror’s results with the SCC SoftLab system will be achieved.

g. The offeror shall delineate the turn-around-times for tests to be processed, analyzed and reported in terms of routine and time-sensitive tests.

h. The offeror shall delineate the capability to provide test interpretations through the use of consultations with doctoral experts, interpretive guides, extensive data on test performance and parallel testing of specimens when there are methodology changes.

2. Cost: An objective price analysis will be performed on each offeror’s price proposal for each test listed, including all options. Any proposed prompt payment discounts or credits will also be evaluated.

3. Past Performance: Past performance will be evaluated from a business and technical standpoint to determine the relative merits of the proposal. The performance of the offeror on earlier work for the Government or the private sector will be a significant indicator of how well the offeror can be expected to perform the required services in the future. The information presented by the offeror together with that available from sources within the Government will provide the information for this portion of the technical evaluation. References from client labs with a similar need for molecular diagnostic testing shall be included with the Offeror’s proposal.

a. The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, as well as other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government.

b. Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of services at fair and reasonable prices.

c. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and the other competitors. Thus, an offeror with the exceptional record of past performance may receive a more favorable evaluation than another whose record is acceptable even though both may have acceptable technical proposals.

d. Offerors are instructed to provide not more than three recent and relevant past performance projects. “Recent” is defined as being performed within the last three years. “Relevant” is defined as being of the same or similar scope, complexity, contract type, and dollar value.

TECHNICAL RATING

Criterion Description Type of Testing Tests per required category

Quality of Testing Ability and State of Art Technical Expertise Board Certified Staff

NIH IT Security Security and Privacy Interfacing With SCC SoftLab

Turn Around times Testing, Reporting and Analysis

Interpretations Interpretations through Consultations Clinical Experience Clinical Research/Test Methologies

The following adjectival confidence rating descriptions shall be used for the Technical Evaluation:

High Confidence: The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Medium Confidence: The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence: The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Unacceptable: The proposal fails to recognize, address, or consider the Government’s requirements.

Strengths: Factors in a proposal that indicate the likely hood of successful contract performance.

Weaknesses: Flaws exist in the proposal that may jeopardize successful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a defect that appreciably increases the threat of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: a material defect of a proposal to meet a requirement of the work scope or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risks: a combination of deficiencies and significant weaknesses that are likely to result in unsuccessful contract performance.