PAVES_Technical_Evaluation_Criteria.docx

Technical Evaluation Criteria The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include technical (which encompasses experience and past performance factors), and cost/price factors. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract and cost/price is 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 the vendor 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 SOLICITATION. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the SOLICITATION. Vendors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed factors listed below Criterion A – Personnel (35 Points)

1. The proposal includes information with regard to which key personnel will be used on this project. Adequately, identify the percentage of time each staff member will contribute to the program. Document the extent to which outside consultants, specialists and subcontractors will be used and provide evidence of their availability by submitting letters of commitment.

2. The proposal demonstrates that proposed personnel have the skills and experience required for engineering or medical development services. Proposal includes resumes of proposed personnel. Resumes reflect the academic qualifications, length and nature of experience with similar tasks, and related hardware, software or systems training.

Criterion B – Understanding and Compliance with Requirement (30 Points)

1. The proposal addresses each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the Statement of Work (SOW).

2. The proposal addresses each relevant requirement and goal set forth in the SOW.

3. The proposal provides technical solutions to indicate requirements and goals will be met on schedule. Proposal should include a discussion regarding the response-time after tasks are requested by NLM and the turnaround time for each service Vendor proposes.

4. The proposal provides evidence that the Vendor has sufficient knowledge of the relevant objectives to anticipate and avoid problems or to react approximately when problems do arise.

Criterion C – Soundness of Approach (25 Points) The proposal describes the proposed approach to comply with each of the requirements specified in the SOW. The proposal is consistent with the stated goals and objectives. The proposed approach of ensuring the achievement of timely and acceptable performance is well documented and sound. Milestone and/or phasing charts illustrate the logical sequence of proposed work events, technical accomplishments and deliverables. The proposal describes quality control program(s) for services and tasks delivered.

Criterion D – Past Performance / Relevant Experience (10 Points) Vendors must submit a listing of the most recent contracts/awards (minimum of 3) which demonstrate similar work in nature to this Solicitation. Contracts/awards may include those entered with the Federal Government, state and local governments and commercial concerns. Include the following information for each contract or subcontract:

1. Name of Contracting Organization

2. Contract Number (for subcontracts provide the prime contract number and the subcontract number)

3. Contract Type

4. Total Contract Value

5. Description of Requirement

6. Contracting Officer's Name and Telephone Number

7. Program Manager's Name and Telephone Number

The Government will evaluate the Vendor's past performance based on information obtained from references provided by the Vendor, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the Vendor concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each Vendor. Performance risks are those associated with an Vendor's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that Vendor's record of past performance.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Vendor's performance.

The lack of relevant a performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the Vendor.

Listed below are past performance subfactors and the weights to be used for evaluation purposes. If no weights are given, each subfactor shall be given equal weight.

Record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship.

Record of forecasting and controlling costs under cost-reimbursement contracts.

Adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance.

Reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

Business-like concern for the interest of the customer.