Attachment 7. Evaluation Criteria.pdf

All quotes from responsible offerors will be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) according to the evaluation factors outlined below.

The Government will award one or more purchase orders resulting from this solicitation on the basis of best value – technical factors, price, and past performance considered. The tradeoff process may be used in making this determination. The technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price and past performance.

The evaluation of offers will proceed in two phases: Phase One and Phase Two. In Phase One, Technical Factor 1 will be scored out of 50 total points. In Phase Two, Technical Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be scored out of 100 total points. Price and past performance will be considered during both Phases One and Two of the evaluation process but will not be point-scored. \

Please note that during Phase Two of the evaluation process, the Government may revise any Offeror’s Phase One score for Technical Factor 1 and/or revise its evaluation of the Offeror’s price and past performance if merited by the Offeror’s oral presentation and Phase Two response.

The Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer will review offers for conformance to the solicitation instructions. The Government’s Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will evaluate all offers based on the technical criteria described below.

The Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer will review quotes for conformance to the solicitation instructions. The Government’s Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will evaluate the quotes in accordance with the technical evaluation criteria described below. This evaluation will proceed in two phases as follows:

Phase One

During Phase One, the TEP will evaluate the qualifications of proposed key personnel to determine capability of performing the consulting services described in this solicitation. The TEP will base its evaluation on Technical Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications and its sub-factors, which are described in Table A (below). An overall score will be given for Technical Factor 1; sub-factors will not be individually scored.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

RFQ Number 75N95022Q00489

“Process Chemistry Consulting Services”

Table A Technical Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications – Total Possible Points: 50 Qualifications of proposed personnel will be evaluated to determine to what extent the personnel are capable of performing the work outlined in the SOW. This includes documented experience with drug discovery and development programs in the area of medicinal chemistry; executive-level competence; educational background; and training.

The availability of proposed personnel and their designated responsibility in the project will also be evaluated, including letter(s) of commitment from proposed key personnel.

Resumes of proposed key personnel, consultants, and any subcontractors will be evaluated for appropriateness of credentials, training, qualifications, experience, and competence to carry out this requirement. Basic credentials will be evaluated in the following areas, designated as sub-factors of Technical Factor 1:

Sub-factor 1: Professional Experience and Expertise in Drug Discovery and Development

Professional experience of proposed personnel shall be evaluated for length and breadth of demonstrated leadership experience in drug discovery and development projects related to the consulting services described in the SOW, including hands-on leadership and management experience in Phase 1 in-house and outsourced trials, particularly for nervous system and pain conditions. Broad experience across the entire drug discovery and development process from discovery to clinical trials shall be considered favorably.

Professional experience of proposed personnel shall also be evaluated for experience in managing or leading drug discovery projects in biopharmaceutical industry, as well as publications, patents, and work on drugs brought to market. In addition, experience showing the use of expertise to identify or anticipate problems early on, overcome technical or regulatory difficulties, distill complex situations, or demonstrate strong risk- assessment ability to make wise use of limited resources, shall be considered favorably.

Professional experience of proposed personnel shall be further evaluated for experience involving cross-functional team efforts in drug development, as well as indications of strong interpersonal and organizational skills.

Sub-factor 2: Educational Degrees and Certifications

Educational degrees and certifications of proposed personnel shall be evaluated for conformance to the required qualifications identified in the SOW; additional degrees and certifications related to the SOW requirements will also be evaluated. Advanced degrees and board certifications and other evidence of advanced training applicable to medicinal chemistry shall be considered favorably.

Sub-factor 3: Team Collaboration Experience

Qualifications of proposed personnel shall be evaluated for length and breadth of experience collaborating with multi-disciplinary teams, especially teams with members from external organizations and members at various management levels. Experience in team leadership, consulting, or serving on strategic and advisory boards will be considered favorable.

In addition, the Government will, in accordance with FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, evaluate the proposed total price by adding the proposed prices for all options to the proposed price for the base requirement. The Government may determine that a total price quoted is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The evaluation factors Price and Past Performance are described in more detail in Table B:

Table B

Phase Two During Phase Two, Offerors whose responses received the highest ratings in Phase One will be given an opportunity to make oral presentations to the TEP, followed by a question and answer session. Oral presentations will be delivered in accordance with the instructions outlined in this solicitation.

The TEP will use these presentations to evaluate each Offeror’s proposed technical approach as well as the quality of its oral communication/presentation skills, in accordance with Technical Factor 2: Understanding the Project and Technical Approach and Technical Factor 3: Communication and Oral Presentation Skills, respectively. Evaluation criteria for Technical Factors 2 and 3 are described in Table C:

Price The price quotation in the Price Template (Attachment 1) must include an hourly rate as well as extended pricing for the full level of effort for the base year and option years 1 and 2. A travel option amount NTE $1,500 should be included for the base and each option year. A summary of the whole contract price, including if options are exercised, must also be included.

Past Performance 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. References shall include the following information:

1. Name of Organization to Which Contractor Provided Services

2. Brief Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

3. Point of Contact Name, Title, Telephone Number, and Email Address

Past Performance references will be evaluated for relevance to the subject requirement. Examples of relevant past performance that demonstrate satisfactory performance in the following areas shall be considered favorable:

1. Interpersonal skills

2. Attention to detail

3. Computer and software literacy

Table C

Technical Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications – Total Possible Points: 50 As stated in Table A.

Technical Factor 2: Understanding the Project and Technical Approach – Total Possible Points: 25 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and comprehensive understanding of the project’s goals, objectives, and specific requirements as described in the SOW, including their interrelation and complexity. The technical approach will also be evaluated for soundness, practicality, and feasibility for accomplishing these requirements.

This evaluation will include an assessment of the thoroughness of the Offeror’s background discussion of the work contemplated under this project. It will also include an evaluation of the Offeror’s discussion of anticipated problems and constraints likely to be encountered in performing the work and potential plans and solutions for resolving them. Finally, the Government will evaluate all examples of the Offeror having effectively trained other project staff or clients in their discipline.

Technical Factor 3: Communication and Oral Presentation Skills – Total Possible Points: 25 The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of Offeror’s interpersonal, written, and verbal communication skills as well as demonstration of its ability to successfully communicate with groups.

Due to the frequency and importance of the Lead Development Teams (LDTs) meetings, the Contractor must be capable of making positive and meaningful contributions to group discussions.

Since some members of the LDTs may lack drug discovery and development experience; the Offeror’s oral presentation must also establish that it is capable of sharing its knowledge with fellow team members in a manner that is both informative and collegial. These qualities will be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to communicate its technical approach during its oral presentation, address any questions raised by the TEP members, and provide an overview of Key Personnel’s specific areas of expertise and experience.

Important:

The Government may elect to request additional information and/or conduct discussions and request revisions from one or more offerors at any point during the evaluation process, in accordance with FAR Part 13 procedures.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate offers and award a purchase order without discussions.