Attach_8_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Comm.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 – August, 2014 edition

ATTACHMENT 8

FAR Clause 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JANUARY 1999)

(a) 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. Selection 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 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.

I. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA – RFP: NIEHS2019-DNA-702

The following five (5) technical factors, listed in order of importance, shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1. Soundness of Technical Approach

1A. DNA Sequencing Platforms – Offeror shall describe and demonstrate:

• corporate ability and experience in conducting DNA sequencing by describing onsite instrumentation, expertise with that instrumentation and operational integrity of the required instrumentation to conduct the proposed DNA sequencing analysis.

• capability and workflow for generating sensitive and accurate DNA sequencing data from various sample types including, but not limited to, yeast colonies, plasmids and PCR amplicons based on a turnaround time of two to five days from the time sample is shipped out for an estimated 5,000-10,000 samples.

• experience with varying technologies, including a discussion of run times and advantages or disadvantages.

• use of specific software that will be used in data acquisition, statistics, quality control, data storage and archiving.

• use of appropriate quality control procedures.

1B. Offeror shall demonstrate an awareness of and experience with applicable industry computer security standards and requirements.

Factor 2. Personnel Qualifications:

2A. Key Personnel - Principal Sequencing Manager The Principal Sequencing Manager (PSM) is the key supervisor/leader of contract personnel. Offeror shall describe the PSM’s management responsibilities in overseeing the conduct of sequencing and his/her experience using technologies acceptable by the industry, data packaging and transmission, and coordination of personnel that staff the sequencing facility. Describe the PSM’s educational background and relevant professional/scientific experience in molecular biology, biochemistry, chemistry, medical sciences or equivalent disciplines and knowledge of accompanying instrumentation needed to meet the SOW requirements. Include the PSM’s curriculum vitae along with any additional information that is germane to the successful performance of the SOW.

2B. Additional Staff Qualifications Offeror shall provide staff with relevant qualifications and experience for the work. The proposal should describe the expertise and experience levels of proposed staff with evidence of their availability and skill sets to perform all of the SOW services, including the associated sample and reagent handling, tracking and reagent and sample quality control using a Laboratory Information Management system, high throughput production sequencing, analysis to provide data quality control assessments, genetics expertise in study design and data analysis, and database management. Submit CVs for those staff members who will work on this contract.

If subcontractors are proposed for any portion of the work, offeror must provide a detailed description of the subcontractor’s qualifications and ability to meet technical requirements, including how they will be managed so as to prevent delays or disruption in the schedule or quality of contract deliverables. A subcontractor management plan, to include a description of the lines of communication, shall be submitted and shall demonstrate the ability to meet all delivery deadlines and technical requirements within the necessary time constraints of the SOW.

Factor 3. Quality Assurance:

Offeror shall provide, with supporting historical documentation, a quality assurance plan that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide reliable and efficient sequencing services in acquiring, analyzing, formatting, reporting, electronically transmitting and backing up sequencing data.

Factor 4. Facilities/Equipment/Ordering Platform:

4.A. Offeror shall describe facilities and equipment for use that would be relevant to the contract. The proposal should describe in detail the existing facility and equipment that will be dedicated to successful performance of the SOW.

4.B. Offeror shall provide a web-based ordering platform/system to allow for simple and efficient ordering and tracking of DNA services, as well as communications between the contractor and NIEHS end users. The proposal should describe in detail the ordering process for successfully submitting DNA samples for sequencing and retrieval of generated data using the contractor’s website.

Factor 5. Health and Safety:

Offeror shall demonstrate appropriate conformance with the applicable local, state and Federal statutes related to occupational safety and health and environmental protection including the handling of controlled substances. Documentation of compliance shall be provided.

Technical Evaluation Method

Each proposal will be rated on the evaluation of the above criteria using the following Combined Technical/Risk Rating Adjectival scale. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. For those criteria that have sub-factors, each sub-factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for that factor.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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 unawardable.

II. COST/PRICE EVALUATION

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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

III. 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.

IV. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation. 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 the 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 all available and 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.

The following rating method shall be used in the evaluation of past performance information:

+2 Excellent - Based on the offeror's performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror's performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again.

+1 Good - Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information state that the offeror's performance was good, better than average, etc., and that they would do business with the offeror again.

0 None - No past performance history identifiable.

-1 Marginal - Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information make unfavorable reports about the offeror's performance and express concern about doing business with the offeror again.

-2 Poor - Based on the offeror's performance record, serious doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information consistently stated that the offeror's performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the offeror again.

(End of provision)