Tech_Evaluation_Criteria_(Attachment_2)_NIHDA201800020.pdf

Attachment 2

RFQ NIHDA201800020

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) SERVICES ATTACHMENT

Data Collection of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Data

ATTACHMENT 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Government will award a contract or purchase order resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors (technical approach and key personnel) together shall be considered significantly more important than cost/price and past performance combined. All technical evaluation factors are detailed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the statement of work requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the efforts to be performed and the skill level required to perform them. Specifically, approach shall be evaluated for expertise in structural and functional MRI methods in research on pediatric mental illnesses and technical expertise in psychological and behavioral experiments in research on pediatric mental illnesses. The proposal shall also be evaluated for ability to use specialized computer paradigms such as eprime as well as assemble a series of computers and associated response devises in a rapid and efficient manner during MRI data collection. Capability in these areas shall be viewed favorably.

Factor 1: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate key personnel proposed for conformance to the key personnel qualifications identified in the statement of work as well as for additional education and certifications related to the statement of work requirements.

Factor 3: Past Performance (Not Scored)

The Contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to the requirements outlined in this Statement of Work.

References shall include the following information:

a. Name of Organization

b. Brief Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

c. Contact Name and Title

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to implementing animals to special light cycles, collecting and analyzing data, and carrying out histology and molecular biology tasks.

Factor 4: Cost/Price (Not Scored)

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be considered 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. The Offeror shall submit firm fixed prices for all items listed in the SOW/PD (including option period(s) or optional lines, if applicable).

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

Excellent The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides a clear understanding of the requirements and demonstrates the offerors ability to meet the requirement. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates an approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains alternative solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

Marginal The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level: Very High