Draft-Evaluation Factors.docx

In accordance to FAR 52.212-2 --Evaluation --Commercial Items (Oct 2014): The purpose and objective of this requirement is to issue an IDIQ contract for commercial specimen test as outlined in the PWS. The proposal will be evaluated against the evaluation factors with sub-factors identified below. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the Prospective Contractor in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the solicitation. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the solicitation. Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified below:

GENERAL This solicitation will use Trade-Off source selection procedures to make a best value award decision. Award will result in one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make additional awards in the sole discretion of the Source Selection Authority. Task Orders (TOs) will be issued against IDIQ contract as Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The Government intends to award a basic contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposals conform to the RFP requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. Best Value is defined as those most advantageous offers, price and other factors considered, that are consistent with the Government's stated evaluation criteria, in order of importance. This may result in awards being made to higher-rated, higher-priced offeror(s), where the Contracting Officer determines that the benefits (Technical and/or Past/Present Performance) offered by the offeror(s) outweighs the price difference.

An IDIQ contract will be awarded as stated above with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Management Capability, Past Performance and Price. All non-price factors, Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance Factors, are all equally important. Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. To receive consideration for award, Offerors must first be rated 'Acceptable 'under the Technical Capability Factor. Offerors rated 'Unacceptable' under this non-price will no longer be considered for award.

For the Management Capability Factor, Offerors shall have a rating of no less than "Acceptable" in order to be considered further consideration for award.

For Past Performance, the Past and Present Performance must first meet Recency and Relevancy, to be further evaluated for Quality of Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Satisfactory Confidence" must be received on the Past Performance factor. However, offerors which receive an unknown(neutral) performance risk rating may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Contracting Officer may, if appropriate, establish a competitive range in the evaluation of the Offeror's proposals and discussions may be held only with Offerors within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Proposals must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that an Offeror is able to provide services that will ensure the successful accomplishments of the requirements stated in the solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists: Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents or fails to comply with all proposal submission instructions; Offeror submits an incomplete pricing proposal; Offeror fails to submit any required certifications, certificates.

MANDATORY QUALIFICATION CRITERIA

Listed below are mandatory qualification criteria. THE OFFEROR SHALL INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION WHICH DOCUMENTS AND/OR SUPPORTS THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA. The qualification criteria establish conditions that must be met at the time of receipt of Technical Proposals by the Contracting Officer in order for your proposal to be considered any further for award. The offeror must be able to deliver and price 90% of the tests listed in the Specimen Test Schedule-Attachment TBD-Section J, within the required turnaround times and the methodology stated. The methodology of testing nor the resulting time requirements can be substituted or modified for this contract. Alternative or inferior methods if utilized may jeopardize the accuracy and reliability of results, which could negatively impact patient care. Also, because all the patients at the NIH are enrolled in clinical trials it is imperative that the same method is used to provide interpretable data.

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS It is anticipated that any contract(s) awarded from this solicitation will contain option provision(s) and period(s).In accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, (July 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS In accordance to FAR 52.212-2 --Evaluation --Commercial Items (Oct 2014): The purpose and objective of this requirement is to issue an IDIQ contract for commercial specimen testing as outlined in the PWS. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the Prospective Contractor in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the solicitation. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the solicitation. Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified below:

GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

The solicitation will use Trade-Off source selection procedures to make a best value award decision. Award will result in one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make additional awards in the sole discretion of the Source Selection Authority. Task Orders (TOs) will be issued against IDIQ contract as Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

The Government intends to award a basic contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conform to the RFP requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. Best Value is defined as the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, that is consistent with the Government's stated evaluation criteria, in order of importance. This may result in an award being made to higher-rated, higher-priced offeror(s), where the Contracting Officer determines that the benefits (Technical and/or Past/Present Performance) offered by the offeror(s) outweighs the price difference.

An IDIQ contract will be awarded as stated above with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Management Capability, Past Performance and Price. All non-price factors, Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance Factors, are all equally important. Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. To receive consideration for award, Offerors must first be rated 'Acceptable 'under the Technical Capability Factor. Offerors rated 'Unacceptable' under this non-price will no longer be considered for award.

For the Management Capability Factor, Offerors shall have a rating of no less than "Acceptable" in order to be considered further consideration for award.

For Past Performance, the Past and Present Performance must first meet Recency and Relevancy, to be further evaluated for Quality of Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Satisfactory Confidence" must be received on the Past Performance factor. However, offerors which receive an unknown(neutral) performance risk rating may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Contracting Officer may, if appropriate, establish a competitive range in the evaluation of the Offeror's proposals and discussions may be held only with Offerors within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Proposals must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that an Offeror is able to provide services that will ensure the successful accomplishments of the requirements stated in the solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists:

Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents or fails to comply with all proposal submission instructions; Offeror submits an incomplete pricing proposal; Offeror fails to submit any required certifications, certificates.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

All proposals will be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. Each proposal will be evaluated against the factors described in this section. An Offeror's failure to address any factors may be considered indicative of the Offeror's lack of understanding of the Government's requirements and may result in the offer being determined unacceptable. Offerors must ensure all information pertaining to the factor is addressed in that particular portion of the proposal.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume 1) A. Factor 1: Technical Capability (Volume 1, Section 1) The Offeror shall describe its solution(s) to perform all the required tests and provide evidence of prime and subcontractor relationships, teaming agreements, and flexibility in leveraging resources to performing the various types of specimen tests.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATING DESCRIPTION

B. Factor 2: Management Capability (Volume 1, Section 2) The Management Capability will be evaluated to the extent which the contractor and it's subcontractor leverages each other's capability and capacity for synergic purposes with clear defined roles and responsibilities to perform the services as required in the Performance Work Statement.

The Quality Control Plan will be evaluated for the extent to which it meets the Government's quality requirements as well as procedures for monitoring performance including identifying problems, explaining how they will be resolved, and how they will be documented and reported;

The Transition Plan will be evaluated to the extent to which it demonstrates effective minimization of interruption or delays to work in progress. A strength will be recognized by a contractor who can demonstrate an effective transition within 90 days of the award date.

Color Rating Description Blue-Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple-Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green-Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow-Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red-Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

C. Factor 3: Past Performance Factor (Volume 2, Section 3) The Government will evaluate the Offerors' and, if appropriate, it's proposed major subcontractors' and/or team member's present and past performance information to making a performance confidence assessment. The evaluation may also take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies and key personnel who have recent and relevant past performance. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting present and past performance evaluations, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal, any other sources available to the Government and data obtained from other sources to include, but not limited, to questionnaires and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

Offerors are also cautioned that the award of an indefinite delivery, multiple award, or schedule contract does not constitute, in itself, evidence of past performance. Past performance will be evaluated based upon the performance of delivery or other orders placed against such contracts.

After the Government has evaluated Offerors' past performance for recency and relevancy, the Government will evaluate Quality of Performance and will assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating (See below Performance Confidence Assessment table). The Government will assign an Unknown Confidence/Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably, to Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record or the offeror's performance record is not available or the information is inadequate such that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. In this context:

"Offeror" refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors or team members. A major subcontractor or team member is defined as one who will be providing at least 25 percent of the contract effort. In either case, the contract or delivery order of the proposed prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the prime offeror's past performance rating. The Government may consider the offeror's past performance as an entire team including subcontractors, joint ventures and/or teaming partners, aggregately, rather than an individual contractor basis.

"Recency" - Past performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Among those performance efforts qualifying as recent more weight will be given to those efforts occurring later in the period than those occurring earlier in the period. More recent efforts will be given greater weight than less recent efforts. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration.

"Relevancy" - The government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. Relevant performance involves Ancillary medical services and will be categorized as Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant. More relevant performance will be given more weight than less relevant performance. Performance that is not relevant will not be further evaluated or considered.

The following ratings shall be used in assessing an offeror's Past Performance Relevancy: Rating Description Very Relevant-Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant-Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant-Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant- Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following ratings shall be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant/quality performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Government reserves the right to down grade the performance confidence assessment of any Offeror based on lack of relevant performance information. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or a questionnaire or feedback which includes substantive unfavorable comments.

BUSINESS EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume 2) A. Price (Volume 2, Section 2) Offerors will be evaluated based upon price completeness and accuracy to determine the validity of the price reasonableness.

The factors below will be used to assess whether the Offerors' proposal is complete, accurate, and realistic to minimize cost or performance risk.

Price Completeness and Accuracy: The Government will review the price schedules for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the offeror has properly understood the business proposal instructions and properly completed the cost/price schedules. Changes to the evaluation quantities, blanks or zeroes in the pricing columns, and/or mathematical mistakes are subject to clarification for confirmation of the offeror's intent. The offeror's proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

Checking arithmetic in all computations.

Making sure that all prices/costs are summarized correctly.

Price Reasonableness: The Offerors are expected to establish a reasonable price relationship between all cost/price elements.