P09_Addendum_to_52212-2_Evaluation-Commercial_Items.docx
DOCX document 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NIHLM2014301-Linked Data Consulting Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- NIHLM2014301
About this file
Addendum to Evaluation Criteria
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| S02_GPAT-Consulting_Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02_NIHLM2014301-Combined_Synopsis-Solicitation.doc | DOC document | |
| P09_Addendum_to_52212-1_Instructions_to_Offerors.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02_Attachment_2_Section_508_Compliance.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02_Addendum_to_RFQNIHLM2014301.doc | DOC document | |
| FAR_52.212-3.pdf | ||
| P01_Statement_of_Work_for_Linked_Data_Consulting_Services.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)
Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated using the evaluation factors described below. Each proposal must address all elements listed in the Solicitation’s Instructions to Offerors (FAR 52.212-1) as well as the associated addendum.
The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposals using the best value tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15.101-1. Evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with Key Personnel being the most important aspect and 508 Compliance being the least important. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Please review the Addendum to the Instructions to Offerors for more details regarding what NLM is looking for with each submittal.
EVALUATION FACTOR 1: KEY PERSONNEL
The vendor should provide resumes showing that key personnel are subject matter experts in the areas relevant to this project. The key personnel shall have a degree in the field of Information Technology, Computer Programming, Computer Science, Engineering, or a related degree. Offerors with a Masters in the Library Science or related degree are highly desirable. Specifically resumes shall illustrate experience in business and systems architecture, feasibility studies, emerging technologies, compliance with accepted international standards. In addition, key personnel shall demonstrate knowledge of library bibliographic and subject authority data.
EVALUATION FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH
The Offeror’s technical proposal must demonstrate a full understanding of the requirement and tasks to be performed as they are written in the Statement of Work. The proposal will be judged on the quality and thoroughness of the technical information submitted. Vendors shall demonstrate the ability to provide a successful solution and approach to the requirement.
In addition, the Offeror shall demonstrate evidence that they can accomplish the tasks to be performed and provide oversight to ensure the desired level of quality control as stated in the Statement of Work.
EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE
Evidence of related corporate experience of similar complexity and difficultly shall be provided. Specifically, offerors are required to demonstrate their previous experience in the areas of health information and libraries and/or cultural heritage organizations. Offerors shall also demonstrate their adherence to delivery schedules, including those for administrative reporting. Offerors shall illustrate their reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.
The Offeror shall demonstrate successful past performance by providing recent and relevant past performance information for up to three contracts. Previous projects shall be of similar size and scope. Three past performance documents are requested; however, the Government will consider offers with less than three documents.
EVALUATION FACTOR 4: PRICE
Price will not receive any sort of adjectival rating. The Contracting Officer will judge price strictly on the total value of all base year AND all option year items. Each Offeror’s price must be realistic and reasonable to receive consideration for this award. Price will become more significant as a distinguishing factor if the ratings difference amongst Offerors’ non-cost/non-price evaluation criteria is negligible.
EVALUATION FACTOR 5: 508 COMPLIANCE: Responses to this solicitation will only be considered for award after it has been determined that the proposal adequately addresses the requirements for Section 508. Only proposals which contain adequate information to document their responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements (e.g. a completed GPAT) will be eligible for any additional merit consideration. This Offeror will be evaluated as compliant or non-compliant for this evaluation factor.
EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM:
The Government will use the ratings below to assess the aforementioned evaluation factors. The Key Personnel/Technical Approach evaluation criteria ratings apply to evaluation factors 1 and 2 while the past performance evaluation criteria applies to evaluation factor 3.
Key Personnel/Technical Approach Criteria (Factors 1 and 2)
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Key Personnel/Technical capabilities exceed essentially all solicitation requirements and demonstrate an excellent understanding of the requirements. Staffing and Personnel/Technical capabilities have numerous strengths and virtually no weaknesses. Excellent probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting Government’s requirements. |
| Very Good |
| Key Personnel/Technical meet all and exceed some solicitation requirements and demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements. Staffing and Personnel/Technical capabilities include some strengths and negligible weaknesses. Very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
| Satisfactory |
| Key Personnel/Technical capabilities adequately meet all solicitation requirements and demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements. No real advantages are offered. Strengths are insignificant and weaknesses are minor. If there are any significant strengths, they are offset by significant weaknesses. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
| Marginal |
| Key Personnel/Technical capabilities meet some, but not all solicitation requirements. There is evidence of marginal understanding of the requirements. No advantages are offered. There are virtually no strengths and may be minor weaknesses are present. If there are any strengths, they are offset entirely by weaknesses. Probability of success is poor and the overall degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements is moderate. |
| Unacceptable |
| Key Personnel/Technical capabilities meet few, if any, solicitation requirements. There is evidence of inadequate understanding of the requirements. There are essentially no strengths and weaknesses are significant. Any strength is overwhelmingly offset by numerous or significant weaknesses. Probability of success is very poor and the overall degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements is high. |
Past Performance Evaluation Criteria (Factor 3)
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Substantial Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror successfully completed projects of essentially the same size and scope in the past. |
| Significant Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror successfully completed projects of similar size and scope in the past. |
| Satisfactory Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror completed projects of similar size and scope in the past but may have experienced minor difficulties on the way to completion. |
| Little Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror had difficulty completing projects of similar size and scope and may require Government oversight or intervention to perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror struggled mightily or was unable to complete projects of similar size and scope in the past. |
| Unknown/Neutral |
| No past performance record identifiable. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .