evaluation.pdf

Strategy and Financial Management, and Analytical Services

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.GENERAL

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, past performance, and cost.

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 Performance Work Statement (PWS).

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 40 pages excluding appendices for 1) resumes and/or curriculum vitae, which are limited to 5 pages each; and 2) supporting documentation limited to 10 pages total.

Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A) Corporate Experience

1. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate a minimum of 5 years corporate experience with similar services as defined in the PWS. Corporate experience should be relevant to the basic, strategic and financial management and analysis services conducted at a biomedical institution and in a clinical research setting.

2. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate experience in the field of project planning, program deployment, operational and administrative support.

B) Management Plan

1. The offeror shall provide a draft management plan demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of the requirements within the PWS and the specific relevance of benefits of the plan for the Government. The plan must demonstrate competent knowledge and expertise utilizing strategy and financial management in a clinical research setting.

The offeror should specify their approach for facilitating the development and implementation of strategy management across several Branches/Offices and Special Projects. Offeror should provide evidence of elevated understanding of and experience with facilitating the strategy management in collaborative clinical research partnerships in international settings. Offeror should provide documentation to support examples of proposed methods, tools and/or plans. Additionally the Offeror must share their approach to management of unique funding allocation and complex Special Projects within a biomedical institution. Offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy and effectiveness of the described technical approach. The plan must also respond to the offeror’s capability to complete concurrent tasks in the timeliest manner to address strategy management approach to global outbreaks and emergencies. The offeror shall identify any anticipated conflicts of interest in their execution of tasks under this PWS and their proposed mitigation plan.

2. The offeror shall provide their methodologies to successfully perform all aspects of tasks 1-4 in PWS with staff identified. The offeror shall demonstrate how each of the tasks will be completed in sequence to deliver the final products in the most timely and efficient manner. Greater importance will be given to descriptions demonstrating how staff and technique are planned to deliver the timeliest quality product to the Government.

3. The offeror shall demonstrate how they will integrate internal staff, subcontractors (if any), consultants, and expert advice/information from Government staff to fully organize and produce interim deliverables for the tasks and final deliverables for the contract as a whole. The management plan shall address the offeror’s capacity to engage with the Government staff frequently and collaboratively in the delivery of services at multiple site locations at the NIH campus and/or NIH offices and facilities in the Bethesda, Rockville, and Frederick, Maryland area and designated international sites.

C) Experience and Qualification of Key Personnel.

1. The offeror shall describe the qualifications, knowledge, skills, and abilities of key personnel. Relevant experience should include expertise in operations management, strategy management, and financial management in private industry, as well as the US government clinical research environment within the last 5 years. Resumes are required for all proposed key personnel and letters of commitment for all proposed personnel not currently employed by the offeror including proposed subcontractor relationships.

2. The offeror shall describe the qualifications, knowledge, skills, and abilities of all proposed management personnel. The offeror must describe the relevant experience of all proposed management personnel to ensure successful completion of the requirement of the PWS. Resumes are required for all proposed key personnel and management personnel. Letters of commitment for all proposed personnel not currently employed by the offeror including proposed subcontractor relationships.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

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

Adjectival Description

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

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.

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.

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.

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

D) Past Performance

1. The offeror shall describe past performance of comparable or related work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of the performance work statement. This includes summaries of work performed, personnel resourcing, dollar values, and points of contact for each body of work. Past performance descriptions are preferred of active work or work completed within the last five years.

2. The offeror shall describe past experience or approach to budget/financial management in a biomedical institution. Offeror should provide evidence of any experience with managing financial resources that are comprised of both Intramural and Extramural funding under multiple programs such as (i.e. HIV, infectious and immunologic diseases, and Biodefense). Offeror should provide documentation to support examples of proposed methods, tools and/or plans.

3. The offeror shall describe past performance and should demonstrate an understanding of memorandums of understanding and collaborations with other research organizations to include academia.

4. The offeror’s Key Personnel should have expertise in operations management, strategy management, and financial management in federal, state, local government and private industry.

5. Relevant experience should include examples of contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity.

6. The offeror shall clearly identify (disclose) all ongoing current and past (within the last 12 months) work experiences, agreements, or arrangements with Government agencies and businesses who are conducting comparable or related work, similar in size, scope, and complexity to that required in the task areas of the PWS.

Past Performance will be evaluated based on the relevancy and the confidence that the offeror can successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. PRICE PROPOSAL

The offeror shall provide a firm fixed price for this requirement. 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.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.