NIHDA201800251_-_Evaluation_Crtieria.docx

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Academic Drug Discovery Center Management Consulting Services

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 factors detailed below shall be used to evaluate offers. Technical approach, key personnel, and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

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 statement of work and the understanding of the expertise required for compliance with requirements. At a minimum, the proposal shall address the proposed technical approach to advise and provide on-going recommendation and feedback on small molecule drug discovery as well as clinical drug protocols and human studies.

Factor 2: Key Personnel

The Contractor’s proposal shall include a resume or curriculum vitae for proposed key personnel. This document shall be evaluated for conformance to the key personnel qualifications, as well as for the extent and depth of skills related to evaluation and interpretations of bio-pharmaceutical research and small molecule drug discovery. The proposed key personnel must possess a Ph.D. in Biochemistry or Chemistry. Extent of expertise in biopharmaceuticals and small molecules drug discoveries will be evaluated.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide at least two (2) references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to bio-pharmaceutical research and small molecule drug discovery. References shall include the following information:

a. Name of Organization

b. Brief Description of Service Provided

c. Point of Contact Name, Telephone Number, and E-mail address

Past performance will be evaluated for relevance to the current requirement and customer satisfaction.

EVALUATION METHOD

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the information below. Technical merit and price trade-off evaluation will be performed after technical evaluation is completed.

Excellent The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound 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 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