Attach_10_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Comm.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 – August, 2014 edition

ATTACHMENT 10

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 approximately equal to cost. The Government intends to make an award(s) to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS

This contract must be conducted in compliance with the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Animal Welfare Act Regulations and the current edition of the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (the Guide), and all local, state, or federal regulations.

The qualification criteria below establish conditions that must be met at the time of receipt of Technical Proposals by the Contracting Officer in order for the proposal to be considered any further for award:

1) Offerors shall have a PHS Assurance from the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). The

Assurance number shall be obtained and on file with OLAW prior to contract award. Further information may be obtained from the following source:

Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health Rockledge Center I, Suite 360, MSC 7982 6705 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817 Phone: (301) 496-7163, ext. 234

2) Offerors must have an AAALAC-accredited animal facility and demonstrate compliance with the NIH Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. For further information, contact:

Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health Rockledge Center I, Suite 360, MSC 7982 6705 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817 Phone: (301) 496-7163, ext. 234

3) Offerors are required to be registered with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States in accordance with the following Federal regulations 7 U.S.C 2136 and 9 CFR sections 2.25-2.28 respectively, when animal species regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are involved.

4) Offerors must demonstrate the existence of an active integrated pest management (IPM) program to prevent the introduction of pathogenic agents to animals housed in the isolator/barrier facilities.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Criteria Points

1. Quality Control Program:

• Health Monitoring/ Disease Surveillance

• Genetic Integrity

• Animal transport and delivery

2. Breeding Colony Management and Specialized Animal Services 40

3. Facilities 15

4. Husbandry 15

5. Organizational Experience 15

6. Qualification of Personnel:

• Veterinary Staff

• Geneticist

• Surgical Staff

• Breeding/Technical Staff

7. Transportation Procedures 10

8. Administrative/Customer Service 5

Total 150

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.

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.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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.

(End of provision)