D_Attachment 3 -Tech Eval _FAR 52.212-2.pdf

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 purchase order(s) resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered.

Technical Factors

Technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price. The

Government reserves the right to make a single award, multiple awards, or no award at all to this CSS. In addition, the CSS may be amended or canceled as necessary to meet Government requirements. Award decisions may include tradeoffs and will be made on the basis of best value while considering the Government’s project objective. The technical evaluation factors are as follows, in order of importance:

Factor 1: Subject Grant Writing Workshop Experience

1) Demonstrated experience and ability to manage the project as outlined in the SOW; 2)

Appropriate expertise in developing and implementing a multi-phase grant writing workshop for

NIH trainees and faculty/senior staff; 3) Ability to tailor grant instruction and guidance for NIH grants (e.g. K22/K99/R00 etc), other agency or private foundation grants; 4) Contractor provision of custom workshop materials (e.g. Handout, guide etc.) to supplement instruction

Factor 2: Subject Knowledge and Team Approach

1) Contractor’s presentation of a team of workshop facilitator’s credentials: Ph.D.; 2)

Contractor’s presentation of a dedicated Science Writer who is experienced in writing/editing and can provide relevant guidance; 2) Contractor experience with grants and critical components (e.g. Biosketch, Specific Aims, Project Summary, Research Strategy etc.)

necessary for complete applications; 3) Contractor ability to perform thorough reviews and provide appropriate feedback based on grant type and research proposal; 4) Contractor ability to provide tailored instruction and guidance to workshop participants in both a group and individualized setting

Factor 3: Workshop Delivery & Assessment

1) Contractor shall describe their capability to adhere to the period of performance requirements listed under “Specific Requirements”. The period of performance will be for 12 months from the date of award 2) Contractor must have experience with federal contracts process and follow all regulations to adhere to contract terms; 3) Contractor must assess cohort progress throughout the grant writing workshop and communicate updates. Specifically, updates and progress reports will be communicated through regular email contact or check-ins on monthly basis; 4)

Contractor must have experience with the NIH Intramural Research Program and trainee community to deliver a custom workshop that meets grant writing needs.

Ratings

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale and definitions:

Excellent

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical.

These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk

Level: Very Low

Good

The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound 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 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