Attachment 4 -Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment 3– Technical Evaluation Criteria Impact of the Collaborative Hubs for International Research in Mental Health

Evaluation Process

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price.

The award will be made on a competitive best value basis, using the “tradeoff’ approach among price-cost and non-price-cost factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the highest rated non-price proposal. In either case, a tradeoff will be conducted. The government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as necessary to assure an award with the contractor providing the best value to the government.

Proposal Content Volume 1- Technical Proposal (Factor 1 - Technical Approach and Capability) The Offeror’s Technical proposal must not exceed a total of eight (8) pages. The page count does not include the title page, table of contents, cover page, or acronym list (if provided).

Volume 2- Resume Proposal (Factor 2- Key Personnel) The Offeror must submit a certified resume and a commitment letter for each resource proposed.

Volume 3- Price/Cost Proposal The offeror must complete the price/cost proposal in the MS Excel format provided in the Attachment 3 – Pricing Template.

Volume 4– Other Proposal Documents & Past Performance (Factor 3-Past Performance) The offeror must provide all other documents that are not included in the Technical, Resume or Price/Cost Volumes (as described above) in a separate volume. These include, but are not limited to:

Cover Letter Past Performance

Technical Evaluation Criteria Non-Cost-Price Technical Factors

The proposal will be evaluated against the evaluation factors identified below. The factors are listed in the order of relative importance. Weights are assigned to factors one (1) and two (2).

Past performance will not be point scored.

Factor No. Technical Factors Scored (Numeric weighting system) Total Points

1 Technical Approach and Capability 70 2 Key Personnel 30 Not Scored (Non-numeric weighting system)

3 Pass Performance Pass/Fail

Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability (70 Points)

The Contractor shall be evaluated for understanding of the requirements in accomplishing the statement of work. The offeror’s technical approach shall indicate compliance with the requirements as out lined in the statement of work.

The Contractor shall also:

o Demonstrate an understanding of conducting programmatic research evaluation in global health.

o Demonstrate an understanding the objectives of the SOW and specific tasks, and planned execution of the project.

o Provide evidence of knowledge for developing a multi-level framework evaluation by which different aspects of the Hubs involved on the CHIRMH initiative will be evaluated, those aspects should include, but are not limited to those described in the SOW.

o Provide identification of roles and specify responsibilities for each role, as well as definition of the primary skill set required for each role o Provide description of resource planning processes, assessment, data sources and procedures to support the project for each site.

o Provide description and definition of management methods and processes for all types of support activities.

o Provide description of management and status reporting approaches.

o Demonstrate the ability to establish a collaboration with the five (5) funded Hubs involved on CMIRMH initiative.

o Demonstrate the ability to address anticipated potential problem areas, and creativity and feasibility of solutions to problems and future integration of new processes and technology enhancements.

o Demonstrate the ability to collect, assess analyze and synthesis data related to aspects described above;

o Demonstrate the ability to provide reports describing all tasks and subtasks completed, outcomes of each, timelines within which they were accomplished, any challenges encountered and how they were resolved and a brief description of analysis with lessons learned.

Factor 2: Key Personnel (30 Points)

The Contractor shall provide key personnel that are able to provide the following document experience, educational background and training, and availability of the proposed staff and their designated responsibility on the project. This includes the education, experience, managerial competence and time commitment of the proposed project manager and the experience, technical competence, and time commitment of other staff; staff expertise in travel logistics. In addition, the proposed key personnel shall provide documented history and/or peer-reviewed publications of conducting programmatic research evaluation in global health.

o Demonstrate capacity to ensure collaboration with the five (5) Hubs involved on the CHIRMH initiative.

o Not a member of any of the five (5) Hubs involved on the CHIRMH initiative o Not have any conflict of interested with the five (5) Hubs involved on the

CHIRMH initiative.

Factor 3: Past Performance (Pass/Fail)

The Contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to the requirements outlined in this Statement of Work within the past three years. References shall include the following information:

a) Name of Organization

b) Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities as they relate to this SOW

c) Contract Period of Performance

d) Contact Name and Title

e) Telephone Number

f) E-mail Address

g) Contact Name, Title, and Telephone Number

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to the current requirement.

Documented successful past performance reflecting knowledge of NIH policies and programs, meeting planning experience, and expertise in travel support.

Evaluation Rating Charts (Numeric weighting system)

Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability shall be evaluated in accordance with the following chart.

(Max = 70 points)

Rating Rating Description

70 pts Excellent: The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

56 pts Good: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

42 pts Acceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

28 pts Marginal: The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

14 pts Unacceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level:

Very High

Factor 2: Key Personnel shall be evaluated in accordance with the following chart.

(Max = 30 points)

Rating Rating Description

30 pts Excellent: The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

24 pts Good: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

8 pts Acceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

12 pts Marginal: The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

6 pts Unacceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level:

Very High

Cost / Price Evaluation

Price-cost will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-price-cost factors and will be evaluated for fairness and 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. The total evaluated price-cost will be evaluated for reasonableness in terms of consistency with labor categories; level of effort, in that the proposed labor mix and labor hours are based on reasonable assumptions; and consistency with the technical approach, in that the prices are consistent with and reflect the proposed staffing requirement for all years. The Government reserves the right to request the offeror provide additional information that supports the proposed prices/costs.

Past Performance Evaluation (Non-numeric weighting system)

An evaluation of past performance will be conducted as part of the evaluation of proposals under this requirement. The past performance evaluation will be conducted independent of the technical evaluation using information obtained from references provided by offerors or other relevant past performance information obtained or available from other sources. The Government will evaluate Past Performance on a pass/fail basis. The evaluation of past performance will not be point scored. The offeror that receives a “Fail” assessment for the Past Performance factor will be excluded from further consideration of award.

Evaluation definition for Pass/Fail:

Pass – The proposal section meets the factor requirements.

Fail – The proposal section does not meet one or more factor requirements.