Evaluation_Criteria-Primate_Social_Housing_Project.pdf

NIH-OLAO-OD3-RFP-5702359

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Primate Social Housing Habitat for Building 49 Central Animal Facility

GENERAL

The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include technical (which encompasses technical request/drawings & adherence to statement of work, corporate knowledge & experience, projected timelines, and past performance factors) and cost/price factors. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, cost/price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make award(s) to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

Offerors are advised that award will be made to that offeror whose proposal provides the combination of features that offers the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as proposals become more equal based on other factors.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFP. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFP. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed criteria below.

All proposals will be given a thorough review. Proposals will be evaluated on the offeror’s experience in handling projects of this complexity and magnitude, their demonstrated understanding of the proposed project and required timeline, as well as other qualifying criteria as outlined in the Statement of Work. Offerors are highly encouraged to respond and ask questions based on the statement of work. Accordingly, offerors would submit a detailed technical bid containing requirements of the project as outlined in the statement of work (e.g. design of non-human primate housing habitats, animal transfer doors/tunnels), including detailed diagrams and timelines of the phased delivery plan to meet the project milestones and eliminate or minimize adverse facility and program impacts during the delivery and installation. Based on the information provided the evaluation criteria will be as follows:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The factors below are listed in the relative order of importance.

Relative Order of Importance

Factor

A Technical Request/drawings and Adherence to Statement of Work

B Corporate Knowledge and Experience C Projected Timelines D Past Performance

A. Technical Request/drawings and Adherence to Statement of Work

The proposal should address each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical drawings and statement of work, including the ability to incorporate innovation, environmentally sustainable design or a level of flexibility. The proposal must also address specific site requirements, how time frames would be met, and demonstrate that appropriate personnel and equipment will be positioned efficiently to deliver the project.

B. Corporate Knowledge & Experience

Offeror proposal must show evidence of current capabilities, including how the project lead will supervise and coordinate the workforce to assure performance of this requirement. The proposal must also detail experience with similar projects, such projects must convey similarity in tasks, workload, duration, and complexity.

C. Projected Timelines.

The offeror should provide evidence of sufficient planning to show that work will be accomplished as required and on schedule, utilizing all available resources. The proposal must clearly indicate that the offeror has performed adequate planning to accomplish the tasks as defined in the statement of work, such plan will be evaluated based on clarity, completeness, and appropriateness, and how will be implemented and managed.

D. Past Performance

ADJECTIVAL RATING

The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival rating.

Rating Adjectival Description

Blue Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Green Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Yellow Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Orange Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Offeror’s experience and the quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

Relevance of Experience: The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Offeror’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated.

Past Performance Assessments: The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Offeror's proposal and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

If some of the Offeror’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined below.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings.

Rating Symbol Definition

Neutral N No past performance available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding O Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good G The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable A The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.

COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offeror(s) cost/price 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. The Offeror shall submit firm fixed prices for all items listed on the SOW (including options).

SELECTION FOR AWARD

Offeror should be aware that the Government shall perform a “best value analysis” and the selection for award shall be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, taking into consideration the technical factors listed above and the total proposed price across all contract periods.