ARTICLE Mamendment3.doc

ARTICLE M.1 CONTRACT AWARD

a. The NIH will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the NIH considering costs, prices and other factors as specified elsewhere in this solicitation.

b. The NIH may: (1) reject any or all offers if such action is in the best public interest; (2) accept other than the lowest offer; (3) waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received; and (4) make multiple awards.

c. The NIH may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without further discussions. Therefore, such initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoints.

d. The NIH may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the Offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The NIH reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the Offeror specifies otherwise in the offer.

e. A written award or acceptance of 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 offers' specified expiration time, the NIH may accept an offer (or part of an offer, as provided in paragraph d above), whether or not there are negotiations after this receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. Negotiations conducted after receipt of an offer do not constitute a rejection or counter offer by the NIH.

ARTICLE M.2. NUMBER OF AWARDS

The NIH anticipates that the award will be made in the aggregate to a single Offeror, but multiple awards will be considered as deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

ARTICLE M.3. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. General

The evaluation of offers will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in this RFP. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully, based on the responsiveness of the offer to the evaluation criteria. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed evaluation criteria listed below. Failure to provide the information required to evaluate the proposal may result in rejection of that proposal without further consideration.

b. Emphasis of Evaluation

Award shall be made to the Offeror providing the best advantage to the NIH, technical excellence, costs, and other factors considered. Offerors are cautioned that paramount consideration will be given to the evaluation of technical proposals rather than price. However, if the technical competence of Offerors is considered to be approximately the same, the price could become the determining factor.

Offerors must be aware that this is a Performance Based RFP. That means that the Government has specified in the RFP the types, quantities, locations and times of the services to be provided. Offerors must review the RFP carefully to ensure that all of the services requested are included in their proposals. Proposals shall also be measured against the Performance Requirements Summary to ensure that proposed services are capable of meeting or exceeding these quality standards.

This RFP is very large in scope and includes various types of services that require different methods, procedures, equipment and personnel to successfully perform. It is the challenge of the Offerors to submit proposals that are fully responsive to the RFP and demonstrates a convincing capability to successfully execute the proposed plan.

ARTICLE M.4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA a. Considerations

RFP Number : NIHOD2010181

The technical portion of the proposal will be the most important single consideration in the award of any resultant contract and should, therefore, be as complete and specific as possible. 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.

The evaluation will take into consideration the technical and administrative capabilities of the Offerors in relation to the needs of the services and reasonableness of costs shown in relation to the service required. Innovative solutions to the various service requirements that utilize technologies, equipment or procedures which appear to provide increased performance efficiencies will be awarded with extra points.

b. Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be technically evaluated in accordance with the following factors with a maximum total score of 1,000 points:

(1) Factor 1. PERSONNEL EXCELLENCE AND WORK PRODUCTIVITY PLAN - 300 points

This plan will be evaluated based on a clear and convincing demonstration of an ability to achieve work excellence. This demonstrated excellence shall include work performed by individuals and the role that Key Personnel play in ensuring excellence through management techniques and added value by their own direct contributions. Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This is a performance based SOW and this plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

· Completeness of response

· Demonstration of added value and management excellence by Key Personnel

· Demonstration of methods and procedures that will achieve and exceed the Performance Standards described herein

(2) Factor 2. DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN- 100 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

· Completeness of response;

· Demonstration of creative and innovative approaches to data management that provide an added value to the NIH; and

· Demonstration of alternative or additional forms of data management that could potentially benefit the NIH.

(3) Factor 3. OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PLAN - 200 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

- Completeness of response;

- Demonstration of proposed treatments that meet or exceed all applicable regulations;

- Demonstration of innovative and highly efficient treatment methods;

- Demonstration of treatment methods that emphasize opportunities to reuse, recycle, and recover chemical contaminants where possible; and

- Demonstration of an overall plan that incorporates the principles of environmental sustainablility.

(4) Factor 4. WASTE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING PLAN - 200 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

- Completeness of response;

- Demonstration of methods and procedures that demonstrate a full understanding of many requirements that must be considered when performing waste collections and processing; and

- Demonstration of methods and procedures for collecting and processing specific waste streams safely and in accordance with applicable regulations and standards.

(5) Factor 5. GO GREEN PLAN- 100 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

- Completeness of response; and

- Demonstration of innovative and creative measures that increase the sustainability of existing operations.

(6) Factor 3. Emergency Response Plan - 100 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

- Completeness of response; and

- Demonstration of a plan fully supports all emergency response requirements described herein and provides added value.

(7) Factor 7. Safety and Health Program Plan - 50 points

All components of this plan will be evaluated with respect to how thorough and responsive it is to the requirements set forth in the statement of work (SOW). Missing or incomplete responses to this plan and its respective elements described in Article L.4.a.(1) and the SOW may result in significantly reduced scores for this factor. This plan should demonstrate methods and procedures that are clearly capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards specified in the Performance Requirements Summary.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

- Compliance with OSHA 1910.120

- Demonstration of full understanding of requirement by identifying the health and safety risks encountered by providing these services and by identifying appropriate mechanical controls or personal protective equipment that will allow the tasks to be performed safely.

(8) Factor 8. Capabilities and Relevant Experience - 50 points

This plan must clearly demonstrate the offerors abilities to successfully perform the requirements of this contract based on documented relevant experience and other related capabilities.

This plan will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the following primary criteria:

Demonstration of relevant experience

- Demonstration of corporate capabilities in terms of financial resources, equipment, management experience, qualified personnel, knowledge of the business and an organizational structure that is flexible and responsive enough to direct and support the services required herein.

- Demonstration of relevant experience in terms of similar volumes of waste being managed and types of waste being managed.

MAXIMUM TOTAL SCORE: 1100 points