Attachment 2 - Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

COLLABORATIVE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS RESEARCH AND RESEARCH

SUPPORT FOR CTNB

ATTACHMENT 2: TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items applies to this acquisition and the specific evaluation criteria to be included in paragraph (a) of that provision are as follows:

The Government will award a contract or purchase order resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price. The technical evaluation factors are as follows, in order of importance:

1. Factor 1: Professional Expertise

The Contractor’s proposal must demonstrate their knowledge and professional experience as it correlates to the experience outlined in the statement of work under contractor’s experience.

Proposal must include a CV or a resume that clearly details offerors relevant experience and knowledge of diverse expertise in clinical care and understanding of neuropsychiatric conditions, as well as familiarity with various modalities used in our studies, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Positive Emission Tomography with both inpatients and outpatients at NIMH.

2. Factor 2: Technical Expertise

The Offer shall detail their demonstrated qualifications and experience as it relates to the contractor requirements listed in the scope of work in the statement of work.

The contractor will provide summary data on the work they have performed. This will include:

A) Extensive experience in the recruitment of patients and family members by establishing relationships with referral sources in the Washington, DC area as well as set-up systematic procedures for referrals when possible;

B) Extensive experience completing medical and psychiatric assessments of potential participants in multiple research protocols by collecting and reviewing past and present medical records; conduct interviews with research applicants and their families;

C) Experience in summarizing clinical and medical data into concise psychiatric narrative for presentation to psychiatrists and principal investigators, complete with recommendations for inclusion or exclusion from protocols;

D) Experience conducting semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews (SCID); and

E) Experience working on clinical protocol preparation, regulatory work and IRB document preparations and processes.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to the requirements outlined in this Statement of Work.

References shall include the following information:

a. Name of Organization

b. Brief Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

c. Contact Name and Title

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to completing medical and psychiatric assessments of potential participants in research protocols, summarizing clinical and medical data into a concise psychiatric narrative for presentations, conducting semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews and completing clinical protocol preparations, regulatory work and IRB document preparation and processes.

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

Excellent The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides a clear understanding of the requirements and demonstrates the offerors ability to meet the requirement. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates an approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains alternative solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

Marginal The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level: Very High