Attachment 6 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment – Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria All proposals will be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Panel according to the technical evaluation factors outlined below.

The Government will award a purchase order resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors, price, and past performance considered.

Technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price and past performance. Price shall be considered more important than past performance. The Government may consider best value tradeoffs in final award determination. The technical evaluation factors have their relative scoring listed below and will be scored out of a total of 100 points.

A. Technical Evaluation Criteria

Technical Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Trainer Qualifications and Experience – 25 Points

The qualifications of proposed personnel will be evaluated for capability in performing the work contemplated within the Statement of Work including documented experience working as a project manager, teaching project management, and has experience managing high level, executive participants. Availability of proposed staff and their designated responsibility on the project will be evaluated.

They shall have a minimum of 20 years combined extensive managerial experience in academia and / or industry at senior executive levels, be experienced in teaching appropriate training material to classes of up to 30 students, and provide appropriate high level project management training to established management staff for scientific project management.

Resumes of proposed instructors, key personnel, consultants, and any subcontractors will be evaluated for appropriateness of credentials, training, qualifications, experience, and competence to carry out the project.

Factor 2: Corporate Experience – 25 Points

Offerors must demonstrate their corporate qualifications needed to train in project management for a federal government agency and commercial customers. Offerors shall confirm if they are a nationally and/or internationally known training provider.

Offerors shall provide information of three to five highly relevant examples of recent project management training experience for the tasks contemplated in the Statement of Work (SOW) that will indicate successful corporate experience and capability in performing the work contemplated in the SOW. Relevant corporate experience includes, but is not limited to teaching a comparable group of participants contemplated within the SOW.

Corporate experience examples shall be provided in a table or chart which will reference the relevant tasks from the SOW, the relevant project management training performed, the client or clients, relevant dates, and the name, telephone number, and email address of a minimum of one key contact with the client organization. The table should reflect the offeror’s true corporate experience.

If the offeror does not have relevant experience in a given area, that part of the table shall be left blank.

Previous experience of the offeror in managing similar or related contracts of comparable size and complexity shall also be evaluated.

Factor 3: Technical Approach and Understanding the Project – 35 Points

The offerors will be evaluated on their ability to present a sound and thoughtful approach to the challenges that are specific to this contract. The detailed SOW specifies the tasks that the successful offeror must accomplish. The proposal should provide confirmation that the offeror knows how to accomplish the steps needed to do those tasks.

The proposal will be evaluated on how well the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the technical objectives and scheduling needs of the project management training as described in the SOW. The offeror’s discussion of the objectives will be evaluated for familiarity with and understanding of the mission of NIH and/or Division of Translational Research (DTR), National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke (NINDS) mandate to accelerate basic research findings towards patient use for neurological disorders and stroke by providing funding, expertise, and resources to the research community.

The clarity, style, and format of the proposal will be considered as an indication of corporate capability in plan development, presentation of information, and clarity of the project management training program they offer.

Factor 4: Management Plan and Training Program - 15 Points

The proposal will be evaluated on the completeness, practicality, and feasibility of the project management training plan to conduct, manage, and coordinate the resources to ensure successful operation of the technical plan and complete the tasks required within the SOW.

Plans for coordination of activities and communication with the NINDS Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will also be evaluated on how well they ensure and enhance performance and include the availability of offeror’s staff to meet frequently with the NINDS COR at the NIH.

An organizational chart delineating the lines of authority and reporting responsibilities for staff, as well as plans for quality control and organizational back-up, will be evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness.

The proposal will also be evaluated for the adequacy of the offeror’s project management training program, balance between depth and breadth of training segments offered, how their training will integrate real-life NINDS situations, methods used to enhance team formation and collaboration amongst participants, and applicability of the training offered to NINDS staff requirements or in performing the tasks. It should also include what training they can offer to prepare participants for the PMP exam.

Offerors shall provide a continuity plan in the event training will be conducted virtually due to pandemic or unforeseen events that may force remote work/telework. The continuity plan shall include how much advance notice is needed to setup a virtual class and a detailed explanation for how the virtual class will successfully meet the requirements in the SOW.

B. Cost/Price Evaluation

Offeror(s) Price Quote Volume will be evaluated for cost/price 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. An evaluation of the Offerors’ price proposals will be made to determine if they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the Technical Proposal.

C. Past Performance

The Offeror shall identify up to five (5) contracts/task orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in this Statement of Work. This will be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable.

Include the following information:

• Project title

• Description of the project

• Contract number

• Contract amount

• Government Agency/Organization

• Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number

• Contract and, if applicable, task order number

• Current status, e.g., completed and/or if in progress, start and estimated completion dates

• Dollar value and type of contract

• Name of company being referenced

• SOW paragraphs that the reference applies to

• Key personnel (please highlight those individuals who worked on the relevant project(s) and are also being proposed for this effort.)

• A brief narrative of why you deem the reference to be relevant to this effort

The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor’s past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort.