Attachment 3 - Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Technical Evaluation Factors

The Government will assess its level of confidence that the offering contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regards to the Technical Capability, Delivery, and Corporate Knowledge and Experience.

The evaluation factors will measure the Government’s confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Offerors shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet each of the purchase description requirements. Offerors shall furnish detailed drawings and written specifications in support of meeting all specified requirements for acceptance by the Government along with their bid proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for their understanding of the Government’s requirements and ability to provide a safe, secure, durable social housing environment for marmoset as outlined in the Purchase Description.

This shall include detailed equipment specifications that specifically detail capability and compatibility with VMRB existing marmoset Racks/Cages, excreta pans, and enrichment and training devices. Offerors shall furnish detailed drawings and specifications in support of meeting all specified requirements for acceptance by the Government along with their bid proposal. Proposals will be evaluated to understand the Government’s requirements and ability to provide a safe, secure, durable social housing environment for marmoset as outlined in the bullets below.

Bullets 1-5 must be thoroughly addressed within the Request for Proposal (RFP).

1. Standardization of the racking/caging system and consistency to maintain efficient workflow are critical factors for the research and for both the facility and program management. It facilitates cage part interchangeability, minimizes the need for storage, and lowers Government management costs. Proposal must detail how The Contractor will ensure that cages are manufactured so that each unit is uniform and interchangeable with any other unit. This should include details about the process and/or quality control measures to be utilized.

2. Compatibility with the current racking systems, both Lenderking and Lab Products New World NHP racking systems is paramount for ongoing research products. Researchers have modified the caging to house test boxes, jump boxes, and other research apparatus essential to their ongoing research programs. In addition, the testing equipment has been fabricated to interface with our current racking/caging systems seamlessly. Proposal must detail how The Contractor will ensure that the cages they produce will be an exact match to the salient characteristics of the existing racking systems currently in use by VMRB.

3. Animal caging must be fabricated and maintained in a manner consistent with regulatory guidance.

4. Racks and cages must be easily sanitized and robust enough to withstand the rigors of mechanical washers and autoclaving.

5. Cages must be adequately ventilated, allow observation of the animals, prevent their escape, and will enable them to engage in species-typical behaviors.

The proposed racking systems and cage parts must be interchangeable with current VMRB existing marmoset Racks/Cages, excreta pans, and enrichment and training devices. Other brands must be identical and perform to the same standards as current cage inventories. This requirement is crucial because it allows for continuity of training and housing of animals, thus reducing the variability of animal behavior and related impacts to ongoing animal studies/research. Equipment capability shall be evaluated for the ways in which the proposed equipment meets or exceeds the purchase description requirements. Exceeding requirements shall be considered favorably.

Factor 2: Delivery

The Contractor shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet the delivery requirements. The Government shall evaluate for the ability to meet or exceed these requirements taking into consideration their supply chain.

Factor 3: Corporate Knowledge and Experience

The offeror proposal must show evidence of current capabilities, including how the project lead will supervise and coordinate the workforce to assure performance of this requirement. The proposal must also detail experience with similar projects, and such projects must convey similarity in tasks, workload, duration, and complexity.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Contractor shall provide a list of two (2) contracts or purchase orders completed during the past five (5) years, similar in size and scope to the equipment requirements outlined in the Purchase Description.

Experience must be specific to the purchase description and include the following information for each contract or purchase order listed:

1) Name of Contracting Organization

2) Point of Contact, provide the following

a. Name

b. Address

c. Email

d. Phone

3) Total Contract Value

4) Description of Requirement

5) Contract Period of 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 the experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services that are timely and cost-effective. HHS/NIH will consider the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror’s customers in evaluating past performance. 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 proposal 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, throughput, 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 relevant experience cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a neutral rating will be assigned for past performance as defined below.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the adjectival ratings provided in the table on the next page.

Rating Symbol Definition

Neutral N No past performance is available for evaluation. The Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. The proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding O Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good G The Offeror’s past performance record indicates there is minimal risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and complete contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable A The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during the performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.