Attachment_3_Evaluation_Criteria_Isotope_IDIQ.pdf

Attachment 3

RFQ 75N94024Q00094

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Metabolic Isotopes

The major evaluation factors for this solicitation encompass Organizational Experience; Past Performance; Technical and Management Approach. Cost/Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Technical factors are more important than Past Performance and when combined they are more important than price. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, cost/price is also important to the overall contract award decision.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Offerors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the Base/Parent IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW) and the Task Order 1 - SOW. The merits of each quote will be evaluated carefully. Each quote must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the Base/Parent IDIQ and Task Order SOWs.

Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their quotes based on the detailed criteria below.

The score will be based on a combined evaluation of the technical volume comprised of two sections, the IDIQ contract, and Task Order 1. Therefore, the two sections will not be scored individually. The combined evaluation score will be used for selecting the Offeror. The selected Offeror will be awarded the Base IDIQ contract and Task Order 1.

The evaluation factors are used by the technical evaluation panel when reviewing the technical volumes.

The factors below are listed in the order of relative importance with weights assigned for evaluation purposes.

Offerors should note that the evaluation criteria listed in order of importance are:

A. Organizational Experience

B. Technical and Management Approach

C. Past Performance

D. Cost/Price

Evaluation Criteria

Rating Risk Level

A. Organizational Experience

1. Demonstration of extensive expertise and extensive experience in providing metabolic oral and intravenous isotopes.

2. Approval by NIH Office of Research Support and Compliance (ORSC) to provide metabolic isotopes to NIH.

Overall Organizational Experience

Evaluation Criteria

B. Technical and Management Approach

The organizations’ ability to provide the necessary logistics in the production and delivery of metabolic oral and intravenous isotopes.

Overall Technical and Management Approach

C. Past Performance

The organization’s specific past performance on identical requirements specified in the SOW within the last 3 years.

Overall Past Performance

Summary Overall Rating (Overall Risk)

D. Cost/Price Offerors will be evaluated based upon cost/price completeness and accuracy to determine the validity of the price, realism, reasonableness, and risk.

Technical Evaluation Rating Definitions

Rating Abbreviation Risk Level Definition

Excellent E Very Low Risk

The quote contains no deficiencies or weaknesses.

Based on information provided, there is no doubt that the offeror demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services required to meet or exceed most contract requirements. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated.

Very Good VG Low Risk The quote contains no deficiencies and only a few minor weaknesses that do not require discussions.

Based on the information provided, there is little doubt that the offeror demonstrates a high quality of understanding of the services required to meet or exceed some contract requirements.

Satisfactory S Moderate Risk

The quote contains no deficiencies and some weaknesses. Based on the information provided, the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the services required to meet contract requirements.

Poor P High Risk The quote contains deficiencies and significant weaknesses. Based on information provided, the contractor has not demonstrated that it understands the services required to meet the contract

Rating Abbreviation Risk Level Definition requirements. Requirements and services can be met only with major changes to the quote.

Unacceptable U Unacceptable Risk

Technical quote has many deficiencies or gross omissions; failure to demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work necessary to perform the required tasks; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the government's requirements;

failure to meet many personnel requirements in the solicitation. (When applying this adjective to a quote, the technical quote would have to be so unacceptable in one or more areas that it would have to be completely revised in order to attempt to make it other than unacceptable.)

Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance

The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Offeror’s experience and the quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost-effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

Relevance of Experience: The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement based on similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Offeror’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated.

Past Performance Assessments: The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Offeror's quote and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughout, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

If some of the Offeror’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined below.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings.

Rating Definition Note

a) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(b) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(c) Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

(d) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

(e) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).