Attachment 2 - Technical Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 7 - Evaluation Factors

Mandatory Qualification Criteria: Mandatory Qualification Criteria establish conditions that must be met within the proposal. The Government will not evaluate proposals that do not satisfy the Mandatory Qualification Criteria. The Offeror shall include all information which documents and/or supports that the Mandatory Qualification Criteria has been satisfied in one clearly marked section of its proposal.

1. AAHRPP Accreditation: The Contractor shall maintain full accreditation from the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc. (AAHRPP) for the duration of this contract. Evidence of current AAHRPP accreditation shall be submitted with the initial proposal.

Technical Evaluation Criteria: The Offeror is advised that contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three factors. The factors in order of importance are: technical, past performance, and cost. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the task order, both past performance and cost/price are also important to the overall task order award decision.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Offerors are advised that award will be made to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that the initial costs/prices are fair and reasonable and that discussions are not necessary.

1. Technical:

a. Personnel

i. Suitability of experience, education and qualifications of all staff proposed in the technical aspects of the Statement of Work

ii. Experience, education and qualifications in the specialized area of Institutional

Review Board (IRB) operations and management

iii. Experience and qualifications managing IRB operations, IRB board review processes, and interactions with investigators and institutions involved in research activities

iv. Identification and suitability of Key Personnel (i.e. Principal Investigator (PI)/Program Director) and their unique education, training, expertise, and experience to lead the tasks described in the SOW.

v. Appropriate mix/type of labor for the Technical Approach proposed/Statement of Work to be performed

vi. Appropriate level of effort for the Technical Approach proposed/Statement of Work to be performed

b. Technical Approach

i. The Technical Proposal reflects a clear understanding of the requirement including the technical, scientific and operational problems and solutions associated with accomplishing the requirements of all tasks in the SOW.

ii. Discussion of potential problems to be encountered and adequacy of proposed solutions and/or risk mitigation strategies

iii. Suitability and feasibility of the proposed technical approach, methods and procedures for satisfying the requirements of the Statement of Work

iv. The Technical Proposal adequately describes how the project is to be organized, staffed, and managed

v. The Technical Proposal demonstrates experience and ability in executing the proposed Technical Approach

vi. Suitability of all information technology / software solutions proposed for the work to be performed.

vii. Inclusion and feasibility of innovative methods or tools to accomplish this

Statement of Work.

viii. Adequacy of quality control and quality assurance procedures to ensure the milestones and timely submission of reports and deliverables and technical requirements of the SOW are achieved.

c. Organizational Experience, Capabilities, Resources and Facilities

i. Organizational experience related to multi-site, minimal risks studies which require expedited review

ii. Adequacy of facilities and equipment to perform this type of work.

iii. Demonstrated experience with IRB operations staffing and ability to recruit and engage external IRB reviewers.

2. Past Performance:

The evaluation will be based on relevant past performance information obtained from sources known to the Government. Past performance considerations shall include, but not be limited to, the Offeror’s performance on similar projects regarding completeness, accuracy, clarity, timeliness, and cost control.

3. Cost/Price:

Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

viii. Adequacy of quality control and quality assurance procedures to ensure the milestones and timely submission of reports and deliverables and technical requirements of the SOW are achieved.