VLP_Evaluation_Criteria.docx

Best Value Evaluation Criteria Selections of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three factors. The factors in order of importance are: technical, cost, and past performance. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance, and cost/price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. The Government intends to make an award(s) to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. 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 the requirements of the RFP. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed criteria listed below in addition to being responsive to all aspects of the Statement of Work (SOW).

2. 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).

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria are used by the technical evaluation committee when reviewing the technical proposals. Adjectival ratings will be assigned for each criterion. The criteria and sub-criteria below are listed in descending order of relative importance unless specifically identified otherwise. Technical proposals are limited to 20 pages excluding appendices for 1) resumes and/or curriculum vitae, which are limited to 5 pages each; and 2) supporting documentation limited to 5 pages total.

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. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Corporate Experience

· Recent experience producing similar technically acceptable products in the past three years. This can be demonstrated by providing information on current or past projects, a discussion of the productions and capacity of your production facility and federal, state or local certifications or licenses.

· Draft Performance and Delivery schedule for successful production and delivery of the product required in the SOW.

· Identification and Qualifications of Personnel and staff who will be performing under the contract. This includes identification of the Project manager and any other Key Personnel proposed. The offeror shall provide a resume and or curriculum vitae for their proposed key personnel. The resumes and or curriculum vitae are limited to 2-3 pages and provide selected references for relevant publications.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

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

Past Performance: Past Performance/Performance Risk: Degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide the requirements of the solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent relevant efforts. NIAID will assess the relevancy of the experience and if relevant evaluate the Offeror’s past performance (how well the offeror performed on the referenced projects). If the offeror has no relevant past performance references, it will be evaluated as Neutral. The contractor shall provide at least three past performance references within the past 5 years performing the same or similar services.

Technical and past performance are considered equal and combined are significantly more important than price.

The past performance will be rated as follows: Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant, Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, and Limited Confidence.

Price: The offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for this requirement. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the prices proposed.. An itemized cost proposal is not requested but may be provided to justify the proposed prices. The Government may request other than cost and pricing data if necessary to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices.