Tagging_Project_Evaluation_Criteria_FINAL.doc

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The award decision will be based on the evaluation factors and significant subfactors that have been tailored to this acquisition. Technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the purchase order; however, price is also important to the overall award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. The Government can make tradeoffs among price and technical factors in determining which Offeror provides the best value by awarding to other than the lowest price Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Offerors are advised that award will be made to that Offeror whose quote provides the best overall value to the Government.

In determining which quote represents the best value and results in the lowest overall price alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government’s needs, the Government shall evaluate quotes using the following technical evaluation criteria, which are listed in the order of relative importance with weights assigned for evaluation processes:

Evaluation Criteria (Total Points – 100)

Factor 1 – Technical Approach – 50 Points

The proposal will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the SOW objectives, tasks, deliverables, and complies with standards and guidelines as well as industry best practices. This factor includes the following subfactors:

1. Proposal addresses existing problems with the unique identification of DCM’s research resources. – 10 points

2. Demonstrated ability of proposed technology platforms, analytical and modeling tools, and validation approaches to successfully be integrated and achieve the objective and tasks of the SOW. – 5 points

3. Proposed changes to concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, and services that drive scientific reporting and authentication of biomedical research. – 5 points

4. Demonstrated ability to promote and implement ‘FAIR’ principles (i.e. make research data ‘Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) – 5 points

5. Demonstrated ability of proposed technology platforms to have significant advantages in performance. – 5 points

6. Demonstrated ability of the proposed primary technology platforms to sufficiently validate to begin producing data in their first year at the necessary scale to accomplish the goals of the project during its 4-year period. – 5 points

7. Demonstrated effectiveness of proposed refinement, improvement or new application of the concepts, approaches and technologies. – 5 points

8. Demonstrated effectiveness of proposed description of how the Offeror would capitalize on existing public and/or private resources. Proposals shall identify organizational partners and support mechanisms that may be available to enable continued development and maintenance of the standard, tool, or resource. – 5 points

9. Demonstrated scalability of proposed approach, tools, platforms, resources, etc. to other resources used in biomedical research. – 5 points

Factor 2 – Personnel – 15 Points

Personnel information shall be an indicator of the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s personnel performance will be considered. Resumes of personnel proposed for this project shall be submitted. This factor includes the following subfactors:

1. Offerors shall demonstrate the proposed PDs/PIs and other personnel’s qualifications to successfully perform their proposed roles. – 4 points

2. Offerors shall demonstrate proposed personnel’s experience and training with utilizing the proposed technology platforms and related analytical tools. Offerors shall also demonstrate the proposed personnel has relevant experience with and an ongoing record of accomplishments in developing and managing electronic systems for the authentication of key biological reagents, including animal resources. – 4 points

3. Demonstrated experience of proposed personnel in successfully communicating with animal and biological material resources, collecting required information, maintaining the databases and providing/reporting the results of the use analysis. – 4 points

4. Demonstrated experience of proposed personnel’s track record of disseminating novel tools and techniques broadly and working with scientific literature publishing resources. – 3 points

Factor 3 – Organizational Capacity – 15 Points

This factor will evaluate the organizational capacity of the Offeror’s facilities and research environment. This factor includes the following subfactors:

1. Demonstrated ability of the proposed organizational environment (facilities, research environment, management structure and oversight, teaming/partnering relationships, problem-solving capabilities, quality control, etc.) to facilitate and contribute to the successful performance of the SOW. – 4 point

2. Offeror’s proposed organizational support, equipment and other physical resources and their demonstrated adequacy and availability to the investigators. – 5 points

3. Demonstrated benefits of proposed features of the organizational environment, infrastructure, and/or personnel. – 3 points

4. Demonstrated effectiveness and availability of resources within the scientific environment to support electronic information handling. – 3 points

Factor 4 – Past Performance – 20 Points

The evaluation of this factor will provide an indication of the Offeror’s ability to staff and manage activities similar in function, scope and complexity to this requirement, and will indicate the likelihood of the Offeror’s success. To evaluate this factor, the Government will review relevant past performance information provided in proposals, past performance assessments from Offeror’s customers and/or relevant past performance information obtained through other sources including Government databases (e.g. PPIRS). This factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following subfactors:

1. The relevant past performance and working experience of the Offeror and any proposed teaming partners will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s approach. The evaluation of this factor will include an evaluation of the quality of the Offeror’s past products and services, its timeliness of performance, success in controlling costs, its approach to recruiting, hiring, training, retraining a fully qualified workforce and the experience of its personnel. Offerors shall identify and provide contact information for past (within the last 3 years) or current customers on projects similar to this requirement, information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken by Offeror. – 7 points.

2. Customer Satisfaction – The Offeror will be evaluated based on assessments of their past performance by past (within the last 3 years) or current customers. The Offeror’s performance, quality of service, timeliness of service, professionalism, achievement of project goals, risk mitigation approach, corrective actions and overall customer satisfaction will be evaluated. – 13 points