20-000097_-_Evaluation_Criteria_v3.pdf

To provide services and deliverables through performance of support services in the Molecular Imaging Branch (MIB), to satisfy the overall operational objectives of the

National Institute of Mental Health

ATTACHMENT 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Government will award a contract or purchase order 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: Technical Approach

The contractor will be evaluated on the adequacy and competency of the described technical approach. The contractor should

1) Demonstrate a clear understanding of the scope of work required for the current projects, with a work plan that will ensure achievement of research objectives.

2) Have a Ph.D. degree in an area relevant to neuroscience, radiology, or nuclear medicine with five or fewer years of postdoctoral experience.

3) Have expertise and research career pertaining to neuroimaging, neuropsychiatric disorders, radioligand development, or pharmacokinetics.

4) Have knowledge in human anatomy and physiology; M.D. is preferred.

5) Be proficient in image (PET, MR, CT) analysis and analytic software (PMOD, Freesurfer, SPM).

6) Have experience in small animal PET imaging.

7) Be capable of independently write a protocol, grant application, or research paper.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide past performance references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to the requirements outlined in this Statement of Work.

References shall include the following information:

a. Name of Organization

b. Brief Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

c. Contact Name and Title

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to understanding and performing current clinical and preclinical projects, competency in collecting and analyzing data, and capability of carrying out task related to development, evaluation, and application of radioligands in the neuropsychiatric field.

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. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides a clear understanding of the requirements and demonstrates the offerors ability to meet the requirement. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates an approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This 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 alternative 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