D.3 Instructions to Offerors and Eval Factors.pdf

75N95024R00043 – Attachment 3

FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

In addition to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, the following instructions apply to this acquisition.

Technical, past performance, and cost/price proposals shall be separate documents. The technical proposal must not contain any reference to cost; however, resource information (such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.) must be provided so that the contractor’s understanding of the requirements may be evaluated.

Proposals shall be within the following page limits. These limits do not include a cover letter, title page, or table of contents:

Volume Page Limit Technical Approach 30 Technical Approach Appendix 1 – Abbreviated Resumes

1 page each

Technical Approach Appendix 2 – Letters of Commitment

No limit

Past Performance 2 pages per contract provided

Business No Limit

Proposals should be written in size 11 font or larger. This size restriction is not applicable to any drawings or past work products. Pages exceeding limitations will be removed from the proposal and will not be considered.

Volume I – Technical Approach

The Technical Approach proposal will be streamlined and limited to 30 pages. At a minimum, your technical proposal shall address the Technical subfactors summarized below and described in more detail in FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (below).

1. Technical Approach and Understanding

Offerors shall describe their approach to accomplishing the functions delineated in the SOW. For each task:

• Discuss the proposed technical approach for achieving the work detailed in the SOW in a timely, accurate, and cost-effective fashion using evidence-based and data-driven approaches and careful consideration of NIH’s needs.

• Summarize the offeror’s approach to ensure that the tasks will be successfully carried out, as well as proposed evaluation and quality control plan.

• Demonstrate thoroughness in understanding the objectives of the SOW and the offeror’s plan for executing the project for maximal quality and effectiveness. Demonstrate knowledge of NIH and HHS policies, processes, and procedures relevant to this SOW in your proposed approach.

• Address challenges and problems that might be encountered in the performance of the tasks and discuss an approach for successfully addressing them.

2. Staffing and Management

Offerors shall demonstrate the availability of experienced, qualified staff and a feasible plan for organizing and managing the tasks in the SOW. Offerors shall provide:

• The offeror’s project management experience and approach.

• The quality, depth, and recency of the experience, education, and training of individual personnel to be assigned to the project. Provide abbreviated resumes of proposed key personnel which reflect their competence and qualifications (no more than one page each;

this will not count toward the 30-page limit). List the percentage of time each person is proposed for this contract. Designate proposed key personnel not currently employed by the offeror with an asterisk (*) and provide letters of commitment for any contingent hires.

3. Experience and Capability on Similar Tasks

Offerors shall summarize their experience and capability performing similar tasks to those in the SOW. The offeror’s response should address experience in detail.

Volume II – Past Performance

Offerors shall submit a list of no more than three previous recent, relevant contracts (during the past 3 years).

Contracts listed may include those entered into by the federal government, agencies of State and local governments, non-profit entities, and commercial concerns. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and subcontracts as required above for all key personnel. Include the following information for each contract or subcontract:

1. Name of Organization

2. Contract Number (for subcontracts, provide prime and subcontract contract numbers)

3. Contract Type

4. Total Contract Value

5. Description of Requirement

6. Contracting Officer’s Name, Telephone Number, and Email Address

7. Program Manager’s Name, Telephone Number, and Email Address

8. NAICS Code

Offerors shall submit comparable information on any subcontractor proposed to perform a major subcontract under this effort. For the purposes of this solicitation a “major subcontract” is defined as a subcontract that exceeds $500,000 in direct costs.

Volume III – Business Proposal

The Business Proposal shall include details for all resources required to accomplish the requirements.

This should include prices for the base period as well as all option periods.

FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021)

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price. Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The following evaluation criteria will be used by the Government when reviewing the proposal. The criteria below are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation.

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

The government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that the initial prices are fair and reasonable and that discussions are not necessary.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The merit of each proposal will be evaluated carefully, based on responsiveness to the Statement of Work (“SOW”) and feasibility of the technical approach. Offerors should provide sufficient and specific plans and explanations on how they plan to successfully perform the tasks under the SOW. Proposals that simply parrot back the SOW, without providing sufficient detail and explanation, will not be considered to meet the requirement.

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach and Understanding

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of the technical approach. This includes:

1. The ability to achieve the goals and objectives detailed in the SOW in a timely, accurate, and cost-effective fashion,

2. The offeror’s capability to ensure the tasks will be successfully carried out, including through the use of the proposed evaluation and quality control plan, and

3. How the offeror plans to address potential challenges and problems that might be encountered in meeting the overall objectives in performance.

Subfactor 2: Staffing and Management

Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether they demonstrate the availability of experienced, qualified staff and a feasible plan for organizing and managing the tasks in the SOW.

Subfactor 3: Experience and Capability on Similar Tasks

Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether they demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the requirements based on experience and capability on similar tasks.

The following ratings will be used in the evaluation of the Technical proposal:

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

Factor 2: Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has expertise and experience in conducting related work and has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of high-quality products and services.

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by Offerors, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the government (e.g., CPARS), and any information supplied by Offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the offeror.

The following rating method shall be used in the evaluation of past performance information:

Excellent – Based on the offeror's performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror's performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again.

Good – Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information state that the offeror's performance was good, better than average, etc., and that they would do business with the offeror again.

None – No past performance history identifiable.

Marginal – Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information make unfavorable reports about the offeror's performance and express concern about doing business with the offeror again.

Poor – Based on the offeror's performance record, serious doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information consistently stated that the offeror's performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the offeror again.

Factor 3: Price Evaluation

The offeror’s business proposal will be evaluated for 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.