Additional_Information_To_Quoters_rev1.docx

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO QUOTERS

Basis for Award: This is a best value procurement. A single award will be made, subject to available funding and Quoter responsibility, to that acceptable quote, the price or cost of which is not necessarily the lowest, but which is sufficiently more advantageous to the Government than the lowest quote so as to justify the payment of additional amounts, based on the evaluation criteria described below.

In an effort to determine acceptability, the Quoter shall submit a quote for the services specified in this RFQ that conforms to all specifications and requirements as indicated. These requirements are mandatory.

System for Award Management (SAM) is mandatory to be eligible for this award. SAM is a self-service data base. Vendors register and maintain their own secure information through the SAM website. To register and/or receive additional information, please visit https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/#1 or call 1-866-606-8220.

All quotes and proposals that are submitted in response to this RFQ shall be at the expense of the Quoter.

FORMAT AND INFORMATION FOR SUBMITTING A QUOTE:

Please submit your quotation in the following THREE SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS IN AN EMAIL:

VOLUME 1: CONTRACT AND PRICING DOCUMENTS:

· Signed 1449 (page 1, blocks 30a, 30b, and 30c)

· DUNS#

· TIN#

· Firmed Fixed Pricing Schedule in accordance with (pages 2 - 3). The fully loaded hourly rate should be listed for each line item.

· Signed Contractor's Affidavit of Non-Disclosure (page 59)

· Price Reasonableness: In order to evaluate price reasonableness, a firm fixed price shall be submitted for the attached sample task order showing a breakdown of the number of hours for the level of effort. Please note, this is a sample task order only for the purpose of determining price reasonableness.

VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

This section shall describe technical information the quoter provides. The technical proposal shall clearly and fully demonstrate the quoter’s capabilities, knowledge and experience regarding the technical requirements described below. Failure to respond explicitly to each of the categories and/or subcategories listed below may result in the quoter's quotation being deemed technically unacceptable.

Key Personnel. The contractor shall provide the Curriculum Vitae of all personnel who shall participate in the performance of this requirement. The level of experience shall include but not be limited to the following:

· Education, knowledge, and experience in preparing or peer reviewing reports on the acute and chronic toxicity of chemicals.

· Education, knowledge and experience in performing or peer reviewing health risk assessments, including derivation of reference doses, acceptable daily intakes, and/or cancer slope factors.

· Experience in performing or peer reviewing exposure assessments of chemicals from consumer products.

· Experience in preparing or peer reviewing documents used for federal regulatory purposes, including identification of independent experts.

· Experience on science advisory boards to assist regulatory decision making.

· Experience in forming and managing expert panels or advisory committees, such as peer review panels.

· Familiarity with CPSC-specific risk assessment frameworks and practices, as specified in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, CPSC's chronic hazard guidelines, published reports and other CPSC documents.

VOLUME 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor shall demonstrate the contractor's background and experience in performing the same or similar services. The contractor shall provide examples of past performance work relevant to this contract. The contractor shall also provide a minimum of three references to include organization name, address, telephone number, a point of contact and the contract value for whom these services were performed.

The contractor shall note any past performance experience (within the past 5 years) with consumer product or chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, voluntary standards organizations, third-party testing companies, or trade associations, where the performance was completed by the contractor or any potential subcontractor that the contractor will employ to complete this anticipated contract. The contractor shall indicate whether such past performance could reasonably prevent completion of anticipated work under this contract or could cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the contractor’s impartiality in the matter due to a conflict of interest.

The Evaluation Process:

The government will award a single award contract resulting from this quotation to the responsible Contractor whose quote conforming to the request for quotation will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

CPSC reserves the right to assign a lower rating or a rating of “unacceptable” to any contractor who has (past or present) significant associations or business relationships with consumer product or chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, voluntary standards organizations, third-party testing companies, or trade associations, or whose work significantly involves performance of toxicity assessments, risk assessments, peer review services, or related services regarding chemicals in consumer products on behalf of such organizations such that the existence of multiple conflicts of interest regarding work related to chemical hazards of consumer products would prevent the contractor (to include any work performed by subcontractors) from being able to complete the anticipated work under this contract or portions thereof or that would otherwise cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the contractor’s impartiality.

Work that could reasonably constitute a significant conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, work related to consumer product regulations for specified phthalates, lead, other metals, such as regulated under the mandatory toy safety standard, flame retardants in furniture, mattresses, and other products, household chemical products, and other chemicals comprising or added to consumer products or component parts of consumer products.

Factor 1 - Key Personnel is significantly more important than factors 2 and 3 Factor 2 - Past Performance is more important than factor 3 Factor 3 - Price is considered to be less important factors 1 and 2.

Significantly more important is defined as two times greater in value than more important, whereas “more important” is greater in value than any lesser criteria.

Written proposals will be evaluated by technical evaluators. Proposals will be adjectively evaluated and placed into one of the following categories:

· Outstanding

· Acceptable

· Susceptible to being made acceptable, or

· Unacceptable.

The definitions for these categories are as follows:

Outstanding - A unique approach which satisfies all of the Government's requirements with extensive detail to indicate how the approach is innovative and not only feasible but desirable, and which is well supported by experience and quantifiable evidence that it will be successful. A quotation which offers significant advantages to the Government in meeting all requirements.

Acceptable: An approach which satisfies all of the Government's requirements with adequate detail to indicate the feasibility of the approach and an understanding of the Government's need.

Susceptible to being made acceptable - An approach which, as initially proposed, cannot be rated acceptable because of minor errors or omissions which are capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. This proposal does not clearly meet the Government's requirements. (Quoters will only be given an opportunity to correct this rating if the Government enters into negotiations. Otherwise, such proposals will be determined to be unacceptable. Therefore, Quoters are encouraged to provide complete and thorough explanatory technical proposals with their initial submission.)

Unacceptable - The proposal fails to meet or to address the technical factors of the solicitation, contains major errors, omissions, or deficiencies, or indicates a lack of understanding of the Government's need. The proposed approach is based on unproven techniques or is inadequately supported with evidence that it will be successful, or the approach cannot be expected to meet the Government's requirements without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

The Contracting Officer's determination for technical acceptability will be based only on the technical evaluation from technical evaluators. Award may be made without discussions. Negotiations may be conducted whenever the Contracting Officer deems it appropriate.

PRICE WILL BE EVALUATED SEPARATELY FROM THE TECHNICAL FACTORS AND PAST PERFORMANCE.

The pricing will be evaluated by comparing the total price for the sample task order and the reasonableness of the hourly rates.

FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS.

The government reserves the right to award based on the initial quotations received. Negotiations may be held and Final Proposal Revisions may be requested as deemed necessary by the government. Quoters should be aware that a complete understanding as to pricing, technical and other terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the quoter and the contract terms and conditions submitted. If negotiations are conducted and Final Proposal Revisions requested, the Final Proposal Revisions shall not be subject to further discussions or negotiations unless the Contracting Officer deems it appropriate. The Contracting Officer's determination for technical acceptability will be based only on the technical evaluation from technical evaluators.

DISPOSAL OF QUOTATIONS.

After selection and contract award, all unsuccessful proposals shall be disposed of as follows: one (1) copy of each proposal will be retained by the Contracting Officer and the remainder will be destroyed. No destruction certification will be furnished.