Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Criteria and Instructions - SPG/PPG LPTA

Advancing Robust Optical Cardiovascular Monitoring via SPG and PPG

Evaluation Criteria and Instructions - LPTA

A. Basis for Award

Award will be made on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis. The Government will evaluate quotations for technical acceptability, relevant experience/past performance, and price.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose quotation is technically acceptable, has acceptable or neutral relevant experience/past performance, and offers the lowest evaluated price.

Under LPTA, technical quotations will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government will not make technical tradeoffs or assign additional credit for features that exceed the minimum requirements. However, quotations must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the Statement of Work (SOW), ability to perform all required tasks, and ability to deliver all required outcomes within the 12-month period of performance.

B. Submission Structure and Page Limits

Offerors shall submit the following volumes. The combined narrative page limit for Volume I and Volume II is eight (8) pages. The completed Minimum Performance Standards Checklist, pricing template, and resumes/CVs are not counted against the eight-page narrative limit.

Volume Content Page Limit Volume I - Technical Acceptability Response

Approach to performing the SOW tasks, deliverables, schedule, risks, data/security handling, software practices, and technology transfer.

5 pages maximum

Volume II - Relevant Experience/Past Performance

Relevant experience or past performance of the Offeror, proposed key personnel, principal investigator/senior scientist, subcontractor, or team member.

3 pages maximum

Volume III - Price Deliverable-based price breakdown for D1 through D6 and total evaluated price, including assumptions affecting price.

No page limit;

pricing template required if provided

Attachments Minimum Performance Standards Checklist, resumes/CVs, letters of reference, publications list, sample code repository description, or similar capability evidence.

Not counted unless otherwise stated

Recommended format: Arial or Times New Roman, 10-point minimum, one-inch margins preferred, and consecutive page numbering by volume. Tables and graphics count toward the page limit unless identified as an excluded attachment above.

C. Volume I - Technical Acceptability Response

Purpose: Demonstrate the Offeror can successfully perform the project-based SOW and deliver the required analytical, software, reporting, and technology-transfer outcomes. The Government is procuring defined outcomes and deliverables, not individual labor hours or a staffing model.

The technical response shall address, at a minimum:

• Overall understanding of the SOW, including the purpose of combining SPG and PPG analysis for cardiovascular monitoring research.

• Approach for D1 Project Plan and Data Strategy, including data sources, preprocessing, labeling, storage/protection, statistical analysis plan, and risk register.

• Approach for D2 Signal Processing Pipeline, including SPG/PPG preprocessing, artifact rejection, feature extraction, quality indexing, modularity, and reproducible testing.

• Approach for D3 Clinical Correlation Report, including cardiovascular markers, statistical methods, confidence intervals/effect sizes, limitations, and mechanistic interpretation.

• Approach for D4 SPG-only, PPG-only, and SPG+PPG blood pressure estimation and validation, including holdout testing, MAE/RMSE, Bland-Altman analysis, and reproducibility.

• Approach for D5 Real-Time Demonstration Package, including reference environment assumptions, latency/performance logging, scenario testing, and user documentation.

• Approach for D6 Final Report and Technology Transfer, including source code, model cards, configuration files, test datasets or generation scripts, issue logs, and handoff materials.

• Risk mitigation for data quality, missing data, signal artifacts, hardware/environment variability, schedule dependencies, and Government review dependencies.

• Security, privacy, and compliance approach for de-identified data, NIH/HHS security and training requirements, secure coding, and any FedRAMP Moderate cloud use if applicable.

D. Factor I - Technical Acceptability

The Government will evaluate whether the quotation demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the SOW. To be rated Acceptable, the quotation must demonstrate the Offeror can meet all minimum performance standards and deliver all required SOW deliverables within the 12-month period of performance.

Rating Definition Acceptable Quotation meets the minimum requirements, demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the SOW, and presents no worse than moderate risk of unsuccessful performance.

Unacceptable Quotation does not meet one or more minimum requirements, fails to demonstrate an adequate approach or understanding, contains one or more deficiencies, or presents an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance.

An Offeror rated Unacceptable for Technical Acceptability is ineligible for award. The Government may evaluate the completed Minimum Performance Standards Checklist as part of the technical acceptability determination, but the checklist does not replace evaluation of the entire quotation.

E. Volume II - Relevant Experience/Past Performance

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has demonstrated ability to perform work similar in scope, complexity, or technical content. Relevant experience may include SPG/PPG signal analysis, optical cardiovascular monitoring, biomedical time-series signal processing, artifact rejection, feature extraction, machine-learning model validation, blood pressure estimation, statistical analysis, scientific software development, reproducible workflows, or technology transfer.

Offerors without recent or relevant past performance as a prime contractor or vendor will not be rated favorably or unfavorably solely for lacking vendor past performance. Such Offerors may submit relevant experience of the company, proposed key personnel, principal investigator, senior scientist/engineer, subcontractor, or team member. Examples may include research projects, publications, grants, prototype development, software tools, academic or institutional collaborations, letters of reference, or other evidence showing capability relevant to the SOW.

Recent experience is experience that is ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the solicitation issue date, unless the Government determines older experience is directly relevant and useful for evaluating technical capability.

Rating Definition Acceptable Relevant experience/past performance supports a reasonable expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the requirement.

Unacceptable Available experience/past performance demonstrates a pattern of unsuccessful performance or fails to support ability to perform the requirement.

Unknown/Neutral No recent/relevant record is available, or the record is too limited to assess. This rating is not favorable or unfavorable.

F. Volume III - Price

The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness. Price will be evaluated after technical acceptability is determined. Award will be made to the technically acceptable Offeror with acceptable or neutral relevant experience/past performance and the lowest evaluated price.

Offerors shall provide a deliverable-based price breakdown for the following deliverables:

• D1 - Project Plan and Data Strategy.

• D2 - Signal Processing Pipeline v1.

• D3 - Feature Set and Clinical Correlation Report.

• D4 - SPG-only, PPG-only, and SPG+PPG Blood Pressure Estimation and Validation.

• D5 - Real-Time Demonstration Package.

• D6 - Final Report and Technology Transfer Package.

The Government may compare proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), market research, other quotations received, and any other price analysis techniques permitted by regulation. The Government may consider whether the proposed price is consistent with the Offeror’s technical approach and assumptions for the limited purpose of identifying performance risk or misunderstanding of the requirement.

G. Minimum Eligibility and Evaluation Order

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor I - Technical Acceptability and either Acceptable or Unknown/Neutral for Relevant Experience/Past Performance. An Offeror rated Unacceptable for Technical Acceptability or Relevant Experience/Past Performance is ineligible for award.

The Government may evaluate quotations in the following order:

• Review price to identify the lowest-priced quotation.

• Evaluate the lowest-priced quotation for technical acceptability and relevant experience/past performance.

• If the lowest-priced quotation is unacceptable, evaluate the next lowest-priced quotation, continuing until award can be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable Offeror.

• The Government reserves the right to evaluate all quotations if determined to be in the

Government’s best interest.

H. Other Instructions and Required Attachments

• Completed Minimum Performance Standards Checklist with quotation page/paragraph references.

• Deliverable-based pricing table or completed pricing template.

• Resumes/CVs or biographies for proposed key technical contributor(s), if proposed.

• Up to three relevant experience/past performance references, if available.

• Optional evidence of capability, such as publication list, grants, prototype/software descriptions, letters of reference, or project summaries.

Offerors shall identify assumptions regarding Government-furnished information, datasets, reference environment, technical points of contact, review timelines, cloud resources, software licenses, and any dependencies that could affect schedule, price, or performance.

Attachment A - Minimum Performance Standards Checklist

Offerors shall complete Columns 2, 3, and 4. The Government will complete Column 5. For each standard marked Yes, the Offeror shall identify the page or paragraph number in its quotation where the approach is addressed. A Yes response without a corresponding quotation reference may be evaluated as technically unacceptable. The Offeror’s quotation must explain how it will meet all SOW requirements, not only the standards listed below.

1. Minimum Performance Standard 2.

Yes

3. Quote Page/Paragraph

Reference

4.

No

5. Government Use Only -

Verified Demonstrates ability to complete D1 Project Plan and Data Strategy within 30 days ARO, including data management, analysis plan, schedule, and risk register.

Demonstrates ability to develop automated SPG/PPG signal processing pipelines for preprocessing, artifact rejection, feature extraction, and quality indexing.

Demonstrates ability to provide reproducible code, unit tests, API or user documentation, and test reports for Government-provided datasets.

Demonstrates ability to conduct clinical correlation analyses with appropriate statistical methods, confidence intervals/effect sizes, dataset description, limitations, and mechanistic interpretation.

Demonstrates ability to train and evaluate SPG-only, PPG-only, and SPG+PPG models for blood pressure or related endpoints using holdout testing and agreed metrics.

Demonstrates ability to produce a real-time research demonstration package, including executable/container or equivalent, sample data stream, performance logs, user guide, and demonstration evidence.

Demonstrates ability to complete final report and technology transfer, including source code handoff, model cards, configuration files, test datasets or generation scripts, and issue disposition.

Demonstrates ability to protect and use only de-identified data and comply with applicable NIH/HHS security, privacy, training, secure coding, and cloud requirements.

1. Minimum Performance Standard 2.

Yes

3. Quote Page/Paragraph

Reference

4.

No

5. Government Use Only -

Verified Identifies key technical and schedule risks, including data quality, missing labels, signal artifacts, hardware/environment variability, and Government review dependencies, with mitigation strategies.

Provides deliverable-based price breakdown for D1 through D6 and total evaluated price with assumptions affecting price.

Attachment B - Deliverable-Based Price Table

Offerors shall complete a deliverable-based price table substantially similar to the format below.

The Government may request additional supporting detail if needed to determine price reasonableness or to understand assumptions.

Deliverable Description Proposed Price D1 Project Plan and Data Strategy $__________ D2 Signal Processing Pipeline v1 $__________ D3 Feature Set and Clinical Correlation Report $__________ D4 SPG-only, PPG-only, and SPG+PPG BP Estimation and

Validation

D5 Real-Time Demonstration Package $__________ D6 Final Report and Technology Transfer Package $__________ Total Total Evaluated Price $__________