Attachment 5 Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

PURCHASE OF A MICROPLATE READER

ATTACHMENT 5: TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items applies to this acquisition and the specific evaluation criteria to be included in paragraph (a) of that provision are as follows:

The Government will award a contract or purchase order 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 as follows, in order of importance:

1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the Purchase Description requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical proposal of how it meets each of the project requirements. This shall include the ability of the offeror to deliver a radiometric competitive binding assay with liquid scintillation counting with tissue and cell harvesting system. This equipment must have: 1) dual-PMT coincidence counting for top and bottom reading (2 PMT’s per detector) essential for eliminating sample to sample assay variability, and 2) feasibility of a 16-shelf load capacity that can hold 16 plated or 5 of the 4mL vial cassettes allowing for the high throughput with the 4mL vials. Additionally, the scintillation counter must be able to count 4mL vials with special cassette adapter or Eppendorf tubes with special cassette and adapter and has internal computer running Win10 operating system.

2. Factor 2: Approach to Delivery, Installation, Training, and Warranty

The Offer shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet the delivery, installation, and warranty requirements. All labor, materials, and shipping are to be provided by the offeror.

Online training is to be provided by the offeror. A minimum of at least one-year comprehensive warranty is required.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

The offeror shall provide a list of two (2) past performance references completed during the past five (5) years, similar in size and scope to the requirements outlined in the Purchase Description. Offerors shall include the following information for each contract identified:

• Name of Contracting Organization

• Contract Number

• Contract Type

• Total Contract Value

• Description of Requirement and Specific Responsibilities of the Offeror as they relate to this Purchase Description

• Contract Period of Performance

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. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides a clear understanding of the requirements and demonstrates the offerors ability to meet the requirement. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates an approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This 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 alternative 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