Attachment 3 - Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award.pdf

Addendum to 52.212-2 – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Basis of Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: This contract shall be awarded as a result of “best value trade off analysis” source selection process. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the CDC the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and it is reasonably determined that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Past Performance, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described under the criteria described in this section.

The evaluation process will adhere to the following steps:

1. Evaluate each Offeror’s submission for adherence to solicitation instructions;

2. Evaluate Technical, Past Performance, and Price of each offeror;

3. For those Offerors who received an Acceptable rating for Past Performance and at least a Satisfactory rating for Technical, make a best value determination considering Technical and Price.

In order for Proposals to be considered acceptable and eligible for evaluation, they must be prepared in accordance with and in compliance with the instructions given in this solicitation and address all of the objectives stated in the RFP. Proposals that do not comply with the solicitation instructions will be considered unacceptable and will not be eligible for an award.

The Government intends to award without discussions so Contractors should provide their best solution and price in response to the solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1. Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Approach

Subfactor Two: Facilities and Equipment

Factor 2. Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor 3. Price

2. Relative Importance: Factor 2, Past Performance, is evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and therefore will not be included in the tradeoff decision. Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, Technical is considered significantly more important than Price. Within Factor 1 (Technical), Subfactors One and Two are in descending order of importance.

C. Technical Evaluation (Volume 1)

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.

Subfactor One: Technical Approach. This subfactor is met when the proposal sufficiently identifies an acceptable technical approach for 1) the requirements identified in the Statement of Work 2) for identifying/resolving problems that may be encountered 3) for overcoming difficulties with performing the requirements for this effort.

Furthermore, the Offeror shall specifically address aspects such as technical understanding, methodology along with possessing the below capabilities:

a) Be a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-compliant laboratory currently performing the requested testing.

b) Be a participant in the CDC Lipid Standardization Program (LSP) and LSP testing samples must be included in the analytic runs with National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) samples. LSP results must be sent to the NCHS COR quarterly.

c) Perform National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibration for cystatin C, serum creatinine and urinary albumin measurements.

d) Be enrolled in a proficiency-testing program through independent laboratories such as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) or a comparable program and report the results of the proficiency testing to the COR in the quarterly reports.

Subfactor Two: Facilities and Equipment. This subfactor is met when the proposal sufficiently identifies a description of the equipment, location and space available for performance of the contract. A diagram of the proposed laboratory area may be provided as well as a description of the space to be utilized. The physical security access controls should be described, including a description of the physical security and access restrictions and plan to monitor for fire, smoke, intrusion, mechanical freezer failure, and freezer alarm systems, and any available backup systems redundancies. Also describe the available computing capability for transmitting data in a computer readable format for electronic transmission and ensuring confidentially of all NHANES data, records, and reports.

2. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the ratings described in Table 2 below, which focuses on the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The Table 2 rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

After every Technical Subfactor is evaluated, an overall rating will be assigned to the Technical Factor based on the individual ratings of each Technical Subfactor. If the overall rating is Satisfactory or higher, the proposal will be considered technically acceptable.

Table 1: Technical Evaluation Definitions

TERM DEFINITIONS

Significant Strength A quality or characteristic in the proposal that significantly increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Strength A quality or characteristic in the proposal that increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Table 2: Quality Ratings

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness identified.

Good A proposal having no deficiency, and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory A proposal having no deficiency, and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, any weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror's response.

Marginal A proposal having no deficiency but has one or more weaknesses and/or significant weakness, the combination of which demonstrate the proposed technical approach would very likely compromise successful performance. Any noted strengths or significant strengths do not sufficiently offset the weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Unacceptable A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence, capability or understanding of the requirement or would require a major revision to correct, and thus, is unawardable.

D. Past Performance Evaluation (Volume 1)

The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s past performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this RFP. Past performance will be considered recent if the work was completed/is ongoing, within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to assess past performance. The Government will evaluate past performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as follows:

• Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

• Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

For offerors that are Joint Ventures (JV), the evaluation will consider past performance of the JV.

If the JV does not demonstrate past performance for award, the evaluation will consider the past performance of each party to the JV.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

E. Price Evaluation (Volume 2)

The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 3.

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information may be required to support the proposed price.

2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or

(c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 4. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The sum of the evaluated prices for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN represent the TEP.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services - As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services by adding one-half of the Offeror’s Option Year 4 prices (All Option Year 4 CLINs; 40XX) to the Offeror’s total price. Thus, the Offeror’s TEP for the purpose of evaluation will include all CLINs for the base period prices, all CLINs for the four option year prices (Option Years 1 – 4), and one-half of Option Year 4 CLIN prices. Offerors shall not add the one-half of the Option Year 4 period price to their proposal for the potential (up-to) six-month extension period.

The sum of the evaluated prices for all CLINs will be calculated using the maximum quantity of that CLIN multiplied by the unit price and the evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services will be calculated as detailed in the paragraph above. The sum of the evaluated price for all CLINs and the evaluated price for FAR 52.217-8 represent the Total Evaluated Price.