SECTION_M_RFP_AMENDMENT_4.pdf

RFP Number: NIHES20140003

- 82 -

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

Selection of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against the following factors. The mandatory qualification criteria; evaluation of options; evaluation of data sharing plan, plan for sharing model organisms; technical evaluation factors; evaluation of electronic and information technology accessibility - Section 508, past performance, and cost/price. The Technical Evaluation factors in order of importance are: technical approach, personnel, project management and coordination, facilities and equipment.

The maximum possible score is 1000 points. 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 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. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed factors listed below.

2. MANDATORY QUALIFICATION CRITERIA

Listed below are mandatory qualification criteria. THE OFFEROR SHALL INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION

WHICH DOCUMENTS AND/OR SUPPORTS THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA IN ONE CLEARLY MARKED

SECTION OF ITS TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. OFFERORS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY QUALIFICATION CRITERIA IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED. The qualification criteria establishes 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.

3. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any contract awarded from this solicitation will contain option provisions and periods.

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, Within 30 days of award, the following conditions must be met:

1. The Contractor must establish and maintain a maximum of a 30 - 45 minute drive to the NIEHS Campus, 530 Davis Drive, Morrisville, NC.

Any resultant contract will require frequent close communication and interaction between the Contractor and the COR. To ensure that required services and face-to-face meetings are possible on a practical and cost-effective basis, it is deemed necessary that the Contractor's office be in close proximity to the NIEHS Campus.

2. All Contractor Staff will be required to be co-located (i.e., same physical location).

Any resultant contract will require a high degree of collaboration between staff, especially between toxicologists, computational toxicologists, and bio/chemimformaticists. Co-location facilitates a collaborative environment. Due to the collaborative requirements of this effort, telework (when requested) shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 options.

4. EVALUATION OF DATA SHARING PLAN

The offeror's plan for the sharing of final research data, or, if data sharing is not possible, the offeror's documentation of its inability to share research data, shall be assessed for appropriateness and adequacy.

5. EVALUATION OF PLAN FOR SHARING MODEL ORGANISMS FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

The offeror's proposal must address the plans for sharing model organisms, OR state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible. Offerors must also address as part of the sharing plan if, or how, they will exercise their intellectual property rights while making model organisms and research resources available to the broader scientific community. The discussion areas regarding intellectual property outlined in Section L should be addressed.

If your proposal does not include a plan, appropriate reasons for restricting sharing, or, if the plan in your proposal is considered "unacceptable," and the Government includes your proposal in the competitive range (for competitive proposals), or if the Government holds discussions with the selected source (for sole source acquisitions), you will be afforded the opportunity to further discuss, clarify or modify your plan for sharing model organisms during discussions and in your Final Proposal Revision (FPR). If your plan for sharing model organisms is still considered "unacceptable,1 or your justification for restricting sharing is still considered inappropriate by the Government after discussions, your proposal may not be considered further for award.

6. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are used by the technical evaluation committee when reviewing the technical proposals.

The factors below are listed in the order of relative importance with weights assigned for evaluation purposes.

Subfactors are listed in order of relative importance.

The factors in order of importance are: technical approach, personnel, project management and coordination, facilities and equipment. The maximum possible score is 1000 points.

1. Technical Approach (300)

Proposals will be evaluated on how well the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish a complex project as outlined in the Statement of Work. For the purposes of this proposal only, the Offeror should provide details describing their approach in accomplishing the Sample Project below.

200 Overall Technical Approach: Rate the adequacy of the proposed technical approach in achieving the project objectives as detailed in the Statement of Work. Rate the effectiveness of the general plan of work and the methodologies used. Comment on the practicability of the proposed schedule of work. Rate the adequacy of the Offeror’s approaches for accessing toxicology databases, accomplishing technical and administrative support activities including coordination and communication with the COR, contract staff, NICEATM government staff, and members of the various committees and expert groups as well as activities related to peer review meetings, workshops, and advisory committee meetings in meeting the objectives of the contract. Rate the adequacy of the Offeror’s financial and organizational monitoring.

100 Sample Project: Adequacy in addressing the Sample Project. For the endpoint of interest, rate the adequacy of the search strategy; literature evaluation plan; the validation study design and controls; timeline for completing the proposed validation study; contents of the Background Review Document.

2. Personnel (250)

80 Rate the adequacy of education, training and experience of the proposed Principal Investigator (Key Personnel) in one or more of the following: toxicology and related fields (including but not limited to classical toxicology, computational toxicology, chem/bio-informatics, data management, regulatory testing methods, and health hazard and safety assessment); in the conduct and management of studies leading to the validation of alternative toxicological test methods, including demonstrated ability to analyze large disparate data sets (i.e., high content image analysis, receptor activation assays, etc.); ability to integrate in vivo, in vitro, and in silico data into novel testing methods as they relate to the assessment of hazard and safety of chemicals and other agents to human health, and the development of adverse outcome pathways and integrated approaches to testing and assessment; relevancy of experience in managing projects of similar size and scope; for each of the other proposed functions, adequacy of the discussion of all specific duties and responsibilities and availability to the project, including the ability to manage the availability, specific duties, and responsibilities of each proposed staff member on the project.

70 Senior Toxicologist (Key Personnel): Rate the adequacy of the education, training and experience in one or more of the following: toxicology and related fields (including but not limited to classical toxicology, computational toxicology, chem/bio-informatics, data management, regulatory testing methods, and health hazard and safety assessment); rate the adequacy of the ability to analyze large disparate data sets (i.e., high content image analysis, receptor activation assays, etc.); ability to integrate in vivo, in vitro, and in silico data into novel testing methods as they relate to the assessment of hazard and safety of chemicals and other agents to human health, and the development of adverse outcome pathways and integrated approaches to testing and assessment.

60 For additional Professional Technical Staff, rate the adequacy of training and/or experience relating to the evaluation and validation of alternative toxicological test method including but not limited to sub-discipline(s) and skill sets such as acute/chronic systemic toxicity testing, ocular and dermal toxicity testing, reproductive toxicology, including assessment of endocrine active substances, and/or vaccines and other biologics;

development of integrated approaches to testing and assessment, knowledge of adverse outcome pathways, and mechanisms of toxicity; development of computational models and prioritization tools to predict potential human toxicity of chemicals using data from HTS bioassay data, ability to evaluate problems and critically assess the performance characteristics of new testing methods; practical experience in the creation/utilization of databases, algorithms, computational and statistical techniques, and theory to solve practical problems arising from the management and analysis of large biological data sets; computational screening of in silico compound libraries to identify members likely to possess desired properties such as biological activity against a given target.

40 Adequacy of Project Management, Technical, and Administrative Staff training and/or experience relating to the organization, management, and coordination of scientific review and evaluation activities, preferably related to new testing methods; adequacy of experience in analysis of in vivo, in vitro, and/or in silico data sets;

adequacy of experience in communications, including adequacy in the current MS Office products (Word, PowerPoint, Excel), HTML, and Web page design; writing for the web; writing for lay audiences; adequacy in experience in meeting planning.

3. Project Management and Coordination (250 points)

250 Rate the adequacy of the proposed approach to project management, including the Offeror’s Quality Management Plan, functional organization chart, and experience of staff working together as a team;

details of project scope, scheduling and monitoring of technical progress and incurred costs and efforts;

proposed approach for staff management, maintenance, and training of qualified staff; adequacy of corporate experience in the conduct and management of multidisciplinary projects similar in scope to those outlined in the Statement of Work; and corporate ability to avoid real and perceived conflicts of interest relative to NICEATM, ICCVAM, and NTP activities; flexibility in handling various assignment types, often simultaneously, with minimal subcontract or consultant work; if subcontracts/consultants are proposed, rate the adequacy of Offeror’s details for subcontract coordination and oversight and ability to avoid real and perceived conflicts of interest relative to NICEATM, ICCVAM, and NTP activities with subcontract organization.

4. Facilities and Equipment (200)

200 Adequacy of the facilities, computer equipment and proposed software equipment to perform the duties as described in the Statement of Work.

END

-85-

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-86-

7. EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY·SECTION 508

The offeror's proposal must demonstrate compliance with the "Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Provisions" set forth by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (also referred to as the "Access Board") in 36 CFR part 1194 for all electronic and information technology (EIT) products and services developed, acquired, maintained, or used under this contract order, including EIT deliverables such as electronic documents and reports.

If your proposal does not include a completed HHS "Section 508 Product Assessment Template" (hereafter referred to as the "Template") which demonstrates that EIT products and services proposed support applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, or, if the completed "Template" included in your proposal is considered "noncompliant," and the Government includes your proposal in the competitive range (for competitive proposals), or if the Government holds discussions with the selected source (for sole source acquisitions), you will be afforded the opportunity to further discuss, clarify or modify the "Template" during discussions and in your Final Proposal Revision (FPR). If your "Template" is still considered "noncompliant" by the Government after discussions, your proposal may not be considered further for award.

-87-

8. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Offerors' past performance information will be evaluated prior to establishment of the competitive range.

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

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance.

The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be a product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror's performance on a list of contracts but rather the product of subjective judgment by the Government after it considers relevant information.

When assessing performance risks, the Government will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror's record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror's record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.

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.

-88-