ATTACHMENT_4_-_TPI_FINAL_Post_OGC_Comments.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SOL-CI-16-00042

TECHNICAL PROPOSALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 77 PAGES AND SHALL PROVIDE

INFORMATION NECESSARY TO SUPPORT AND DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED

ACCEPTABILITY EXPERIENCE CALLED FOR IN EACH OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA

SET FORTH IN ATTACHMENT 3.

OFFERORS SHALL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF ELEVEN PAGES FOR EACH OF

THE SEVEN CRITERIA. THE FIRST PAGE OF THE OFFEROR’S RESPONSE TO EACH

CRITERION SHALL CONSIST OF A TABLE, NUMBERED ONE TO FIVE, THAT

PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THE FIVE EXAMPLES

USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUISITE CONTRACT* EXPERIENCE FOR EACH

CRITERION. EACH TABLE SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE

CORRESPONDING CRITERION NUMBER AND CRITERION DESCRIPTION:

The table shall contain the following for each example used to demonstrate the requisite experience: 1) Contract Number; 2) If part of a larger contract, the

Task Order number or Work Assignment number; 3) Contracting Party; 4) title of requirement; 5) Point of Contact with Job Title; 6) Contact’s phone number

(by including a phone number, the offeror is providing assurance that the number is both current and valid); 7) Dollar Value; and 8) Period of Performance (Start-

End date).

PAGES TWO THROUGH ELEVEN FOR EACH CRITERION SHALL BE USED TO

DEMONSTRATE CONTRACT EXPERIENCE REQUIRED FOR EACH CRITERION, as specifically requested for that criterion below. Each page shall be titled and numbered to clearly correspond with BOTH the page one table and the criterion. It is possible that certain information may be used more than once in support of different criteria but each criterion’s demonstration of experience must stand on its own without cross reference.

*The term “contract” is meant to mean any agreement with another party such as a contract, purchase order, task order, or work assignment worth a value of at least $25,000.

Specific instructions for each individual Criterion:

Criterion 1. For each peer review, provide the following information: Title and abstract of the document reviewed; Number of peer reviewers on the peer review panel; Principle expertise of each peer reviewer (Names not needed; e.g., Peer Reviewer A – hepatotoxicology; Peer

Reviewer B neurotoxicology; Peer Reviewer C – chemical risk assessment, etc.); A brief summary of the charge questions provided to the peer review panel; and a brief statement of technical issues that required balance. No more than two pages per peer review shall be used to provide the preceding information.

Criterion 2. For each peer review meeting, provide the following information: Title and abstract of document reviewed; Date, location, and duration of meeting; Approximate number of public attendees; and approximate number of public attendees presenting information to the peer review panel, if applicable. No more than two pages per peer review meeting shall be used to provide the preceding information.

Criterion 3. For each peer review, provide the following information: Title and abstract of the document reviewed; The number of peer reviewers originally considered for membership on the panel; and a brief summary of the COI screening provisions required by the contract under which the peer review was conducted. No more than two pages for each peer review shall be used to

Criterion 4. For each peer review, provide the following information: Title and abstract of the document reviewed; number of peer reviewers on the review panel; principle expertise of each peer reviewer (Names not need; e.g., Peer Reviewer A – hepatotoxicology, Peer Reviewer B neurotoxicology, Peer Reviewer C – chemical risk assessment, etc.); and a brief summary of the charge questions provided the peer review panel. No more than two pages for each peer review shall be used to provide the preceding information.

Criterion 5. For each workshop/meeting, provide the following information: The title of the workshop/meeting and the agenda; The number of attendees and date and duration of the workshop/meeting; and typical document output such as copies of meeting announcements and copies of public comments received (such documents do not count against the page limitation).

No more than two pages for each workshop/meeting shall be used to provide the preceding information.

Criterion 6. For each workshop/meeting, provide the following information: The title of the workshop/meeting and the agenda; The number of attendees and date and duration of the workshop/meeting; A copy of the meeting announcement/invitation (copy of main web page acceptable); The number of public comments received and the approximate total number of pages of public comments; and typical document output such as copies of meeting announcements and copies of public comments received (such documents do not count against the page limitation). No more than two pages for each workshop/meeting shall be used to

Criterion 7. Provide the following information: The title and length of each issue paper; Table of contents from issue paper if such exists; Abstract of issue paper if such exists, or a brief statement of the contents of the issue paper; and a copy of the publication (not counted against the page limitation), with the citation shown if published. No more than two pages for each issue paper shall be used to provide the preceding information.

ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

As stated in the Section M Provision of the Solicitation, to be eligible for award, an offeror must meet or exceed the acceptability standards for non-cost factors which are established in Attachments

3 and 4. There are a total of seven criteria, and an offeror must be evaluated as acceptable under each criterion to be deemed technically acceptable and therefore eligible to be considered for award based on price.