Attachment 4 - Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Government will award a purchase order or orders resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price. The technical evaluation factors are listed in the order of importance, with Technical Capability being more important than Personnel Qualifications which is more important than Recruitment and Retention Plan. The technical evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the statement of work requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the statement of work and compliance with requirements. Technical Capability should also include organizational capability (experience) as indication of an offeror’s ability to successfully perform the statement of work.

(a) Capability of offeror to successfully provide both a clinical/ translational and basic research program, to include access to clinical and basic research facilities.

(b) Offeror's demonstrated history of working with local tribes and/or plan for working with local tribe.

Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications

The Contractor’s proposal shall be evaluated for level of conformance to the key personnel qualifications and personnel qualifications identified in the Statement of Work. Contractor’s proposal shall contain a resume/CV for each proposed staff member.

Factor 3: Recruitment & Retention Plan

Contractor’s proposal shall be evaluated on its ability to meet the recruitment of students outlined in the Statement of Work. The Offeror should address in their proposal how they will recruit the appropriate number of students and provide a plan for the retention of students. This includes an explanation for how an Offeror would find a capable replacement student for Option Year 1 activities in the event a student does not remain in the Program.

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

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

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

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

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

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