Attachment 4 - TechEval Criteria_20-001641.pdf

Technical Evaluation Criteria

NIMH-20-001641

Marmoset Cages/Pans for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Veterinary Medicine and Resources Branch (VRMB)

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:

The Rated Technical Factors, listed in descending order of importance, are:

Factor 1: Equipment Capability

The Contractor shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet each of the purchase description requirements. This shall include detailed equipment specifications and capability, as well as compatibility with existing Lenderking marmoset cages, excreta pans [MARM303139-101] and enrichment and training devices. The equipment must be brand name or equal, and be compatible with the NIMH VRMB existing Lenderking marmoset cages [MARM303139-101]. Other brands must be identical in nature and perform to current cage inventories by allowing for new cages to connect with existing cages through the use of modified cage openings to facility family, pair and group housing arrangements.

Cages must be identical in specifications to allow for current weighing and training devices to mount to identical areas of the cage front. This requirement is important because it allows for continuity of training and housing of animals thus reducing variability of animal behavior and related impacts to ongoing animal studies. Equipment capability shall be evaluated for the ways in which the proposed equipment meets or exceeds the purchase description requirements. Exceeding requirements shall be considered favorably.

Factor 2: Delivery

The Contractor shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet the delivery requirement. The Government shall evaluate for ability to meet or exceed these requirements. Proposals must include a delivery lead-time and approach.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide a list of two (2) contracts or purchase orders completed during the past five (5) years, similar in size and scope to the equipment requirements outlined in the purchase description. Experience must be specific to the purchase description and 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

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