AMENDED_ATTACHMENT_1_-__EVALUATION_CRITERIA.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation NIH-NIDA-CSS-18-4813435 Polycarbonate Enrichment Tunnels for Research Rodents

AMENDED ATTACHMENT 1: EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award a contract resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price and all technical evaluation factors are detailed below:

Factor 1: Capability and Compatibility and Sample Tube Evaluation

The contractor shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet each of the salient characteristics and each of the additional requirements detailed in the Purchase Description. The contractor’s technical proposal shall include detailed specifications of the offered items, including manufacturing materials and processes. The contractor’s technical approach shall be evaluated according to how the requested items meet the specification requirements.

Specification sheets shall be submitted at time of bid. Specification sheets shall include:

a. Description of the manufacturing process

b. Description of the material used in manufacturing

c. Material safety data sheets (MSDS), or safety data sheets (SDS)

Offerors shall submit samples of both the mouse and rat tube manufactured as closely as possible to the requested specifications with their proposals which shall be examined by NINDS to evaluate how well the offeror’s tubes comply with the Salient Characteristics section contained in the Purchase Description.

Submitted sample enrichment tunnels should at a minimum meet all the technical requirements contained in the Salient Characteristics section of the Purchase Description other than exact dimensions. Exact dimensions are preferred for submitted samples and will be given preference in the evaluation, however if an offeror does not have sufficient time to manufacture to exact specifications they should submit samples as close to the requested dimensions as possible and provide written evidence of their capability and experience in providing like products manufactured to custom dimensions. Any observed deviations from the Salient Characteristics contained in the Purchase Description (other than slight deviations to exact dimensions as described earlier in this paragraph) or observed defects in workmanship may result in an unfavorable evaluation for this Evaluation Criterion.

DELIVER MOUSE AND RAT ENRICHMENT TUNNEL SAMPLES (one of each) ON

OR BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS COMBINED SOLICITATION/SYNOPSIS

TO:

National Institutes of Health

ATTN: Ed Czarra

Bldg. 35

35 Convent Drive

Rm GE 345; MSC 3722

Bethesda, MD 20892-3722

Please reference Combined Synopsis/Solicitation NIH-NIDA-CSS-18-4813435 on delivery of sample enrichment tunnels.

Factor 2: Delivery and Warranty:

The contractor shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet the delivery, and warranty requirements outlined in the Purchase Description. The Government shall evaluate for the ability to meet or exceed these requirements.

Factor 3: Past Performance/Organizational Experience

The contractor must provide evidence of having providing polycarbonate enrichment devices for rodents utilized in biomedical research. Experience of 5 years or more in this regard is preferred – please provide evidence of the number of years’ experience in providing like enrichment tunnels/devices.

Additionally, the Contractor shall provide a list of two (2) contacts or purchase orders completed during the past five (5) years, similar in size and scope to the equipment requirements outlined in this Purchase Description. Experience must be specific to the Purchase Description and shall include the following information for each contract or purchase order listed:

a. Name of Contracting Organization

b. Total Contract Value

c. Description of Requirement

d. Contract Period of Performance

e. Contract Point of Contact Name

f. Contract Point of Contract Telephone/E-mail

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to the current requirement.

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

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