Attachment 4 Evaluation Criteria for Animal Genotyping.pdf

Attachment 4

Evaluation Criteria for Animal Genotyping

Technical Evaluation Criteria

The offeror’s technical quote will be evaluated based on the criteria below.

1. Soundness of Approach:

1A. DNA Genotyping Platforms Demonstrate corporate ability and experience in conducting DNA genotyping by describing onsite instrumentation, expertise with that instrumentation and operational integrity of the required instrumentation to conduct the required DNA genotyping analysis. Demonstrate capability and workflow for generating sensitive and accurate DNA genotyping data based on a turnaround time of 72 hours from the time sample is shipped out for 6,000-13,000 samples per month with an estimated average of

9,000 samples per month and on experience with varying technologies, with their run times and advantages or disadvantages addressed. Discuss specific software that will be used in data acquisition, statistics, quality control, data storage and archiving. Describe quality control procedures.

1B. Demonstrate an awareness of and experience with applicable industry computer security standards and requirements.

2. Personnel Qualifications:

2A. Key Personnel- Principal Genotyping Manager The Principal Genotyping Manager

(PGM) is the key supervisor/leader of contract personnel. Describe the PGM’s management responsibilities in overseeing the conduct of genotyping and his/her experience using technologies acceptable by the industry, data packaging and transmission, and coordination of personnel that staff the genomics facility. Describe the PGM’s educational background and relevant professional/scientific experience in molecular biology, biochemistry, chemistry, medical sciences or equivalent disciplines and knowledge of accompanying instrumentation needed to meet the SOW requirements. Include the PGM’s curriculum vitae along with any additional information that is germane to the successful performance of the

SOW.

2B. Additional Staff Qualifications Describe the expertise and experience levels needed of required staff with evidence of their availability and skill sets to perform all of the SOW services, including the associated sample and reagent handling, tracking and reagent and sample quality control using a Laboratory Information Management system, high throughput production genotyping, analysis to provide data quality control assessments, genetics expertise in study design and data analysis, and database management. Submit CVs for those staff members who will work on this contract.

3. Quality Assurance: Provide, with supporting historical documentation, a quality assurance plan for genotyping in acquiring, analyzing, formatting, reporting, and electronically transmitting genotyping data.

4. Facilities/Equipment: Describe in detail the facility and equipment that will be dedicated to successful performance of the SOW,

5. Health and Safety: Demonstrate conformance with the applicable local, state and Federal statutes related to occupational safety and health and environmental protection including the handling of controlled substances. Documentation of compliance shall be provided.

6. Past Performance: Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation. However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose quote is determined to be technically unacceptable.

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

Quotes will be rated using the following rating scale of adjectival ratings for each category and sub-category:

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional (E) Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government; quote must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive an exceptional.

Acceptable (A) Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Quote; quotes rated Acceptable must have no major deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.

Marginal (M) Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Quote, but these weaknesses may be correctable.

Unacceptable (U) Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements;

quote has one or more deficiencies. Quotes with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

The Government will assess the Quoter’s recent and relevant past experience and performance as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Quoter to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three years from the RFQ release date; relevant in terms of size, scope, and complexity. The submission will be evaluated on the following:

Relevancy of information provided and obtained from references provided by the Quoter, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the quoter concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts, as well as corrective action taken.

Relevancy of past performance to the SOW in quality of services; timeliness of performance and record of meeting schedules; ability to understand and resolve deficiencies in a timely manner with no adverse impact on the mission, general responsiveness to contract requirements and to technical direction; and, customer satisfaction.

Price

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the price of the individual items listed on the Price Quote Instructions (Attachment 7) to determine if the Quoters price is fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106.

Evaluation of Options

It is anticipated that any contract(s) awarded from this solicitation will contain only a Option Tto

Extend Services (FAR 52.217-8).

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, (July 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional

(E)

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government; quote must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive an exceptional.

Acceptable

(A)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Quote; quote rated Acceptable must have no major deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.

Marginal (M)

Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Quote, but these weaknesses may be correctable.

Unacceptable

(U)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements;

quote has one or more deficiencies. Quotes with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

No Rating

(NR)

A “No Rating” rating indicates the Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information of past performance is not available; the Quoter will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably.