Attachment 7 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

RFQ. No. 75N95022R00048 Attachment 7 – Evaluation Criteria Title: Medicinal Chemistry Consulting Services

The Government will award a contract(s)/order(s) resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors, price, and past performance considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price and past performance. All technical evaluation factors are detailed below.

As described herein, the evaluation of quotes/responses will proceed in two phases: Phase One and Phase Two. Phase One will be scored out of 50 possible points for Technical Factor 1.

Phase Two will be scored out of 100 possible points for Technical Factors 1, 2, and 3. 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 Quoter’s Phase One score for Technical Factor 1 and/or revise its evaluation of the Quoter’s price and past performance if merited by the Quoter’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.

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 below in Table A. An overall score will be given for Technical Factor 1;

sub-factors will not be individually scored.

Table A. Technical Factors Evaluation Criteria 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:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 for Medicinal Chemistry 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 Certification 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: Collaborative Team 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 such as team leadership, consulting, or service on strategic and advisory boards shall be considered favorably.

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 quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise said options. The non-technical factors of Price and Past Performance are described in more detail in Table B:

Table B. Non-technical Factors Evaluation Criteria

Phase Two:

Only those offerors whose responses received the highest ratings in Phase One will be given an opportunity to submit a Phase Two written response for Technical Factors 2 and 3 (see Table C) and to give an oral presentation to the TEP.

The TEP will use these presentations to evaluate the 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. The evaluation criteria for Technical Factors 2 and 3 are described in more detail in Table C:

Table C: Technical Factors Evaluation Criteria

Technical Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications – Total Possible Points: 50 Please see Table A.

Proposed Price Offeror’s total quoted price will be evaluated for 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 offeror’s price quote will be performed to determine if it reflects a clear understanding of the requirements and is consistent with Quoter’s technical response.

If the Offeror proposes the involvement of any additional staff besides Key Personnel, it must clearly articulate how their role will be fulfilled and why it believes additional personnel are necessary. The Offeror must also specify how work time of additional staff will be charged (e.g. direct hourly rate or included within overhead cost). Finally, if Offer includes any Other Direct Costs (ODCs) besides travel in its Price Template, the Offeror must include its rationale for the other ODCs in the Offeror’s Price Narrative.

Price Risk: Refers to any aspect of Quoter’s quote that could have significant negative price consequences for the Government. Quotes will be assessed to identify potential risks.

Past Performance A past performance evaluation will be conducted only on Quoter’s whose quotes have been determined to be technically acceptable.

Technical Factor 2: Understanding the Project and Technical Approach – Total Possible Points:

The Government will evaluate the Quoter’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 Quoter’s background discussion of the work contemplated under this project. It will also include an evaluation of the Quoter’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 Quoter 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 Quoter’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 Quoter’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 Quoter’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 conduct discussions, obtain additional information and/or request revisions from one or more Quoters at any point during the evaluation process, in accordance with FAR Part 13 procedures. The Government also reserves the right to evaluate quotes and award a purchase order without discussions as well as the right to make no award.