Tech eval_draft_01212022.docx

RFP-

TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

In accordance to FAR 52.212-2 --Evaluation --Commercial Services (NOV 2021): The purpose and objective of this requirement is to issue an IDIQ contract for Donor Testing services as outlined in the Statement of Work. The proposal will be evaluated against the evaluation factors with sub-factors identified below. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the Prospective Contractor in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the solicitation. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the solicitation.

GENERAL: This solicitation will use Trade-Off source selection procedures to make a best value award decision. Award will result in one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Annual Task Orders (TOs) will be issued against the IDIQ contract as Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The Government intends to award a basic contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. Best Value is defined as those most advantageous offers, price and non-price factors considered.

Appropriate consideration will be given to the four evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Management Capability, Past Performance, and Price. All non-price factors, Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance Factors, are all equally important. Technical Capability, Management Capability, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. To receive consideration for award, Offerors must first meet all of the criteria under the Mandatory Criteria Section and subsequently be rated 'Acceptable' under the Technical Capability Factor. Offerors rated 'Unacceptable' under this non-price factor will no longer be considered for award.

For Past Performance, the Past and Present Performance must first meet Recency and Relevancy, to be further evaluated for Quality of Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Satisfactory Confidence" must be received on the Past Performance factor. However, offerors which receive an unknown (neutral) performance risk rating may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Proposals must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that an Offeror is able to provide services that will ensure the successful accomplishments of the requirements stated in the solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists: Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents or fails to comply with all proposal submission instructions; Offeror submits an incomplete pricing proposal; Offeror fails to submit any required certifications, certificates.

MANDATORY QUALIFICATION CRITERIA.

THE OFFEROR SHALL INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION WHICH DOCUMENTS AND/OR SUPPORTS THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA. The qualification criteria establish conditions that must be met at the time of receipt of Technical Proposals by the Contracting Officer in order for your proposal to be considered any further for award.

MANDATORY CRITERIA

1. The Offeror must be registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Agency for laboratory testing of blood donor

2. The Offeror must be certified by Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services for performance of the laboratory tests listed in Section 2.2.

3. The offeror must be in compliance with cGMP requirements for testing labs as demonstrated by accreditation by third parties such as AABB, CAP or other laboratory accrediting agency.

4. The Offeror must provide assurance that it has alternate testing sites or arrangement in the event that one testing location is not operational (e.g, if a NAT lab is temporarily decommissioned due to contamination issues).

5. Ensure each laboratory possesses all legally-required licenses, certifications and accreditations in accordance with Federal statute and implementing regulations well as those of the state in which laboratory is located.

6. The Offeror must be capable of providing testing services seven days/week on multiple shifts and report initial screening results within 24 hours of receipt of samples.

7. The offeror must be able to perform all testing of the routine collections on no more than 24 ml of blood or an approved minimum that is set by NIH at time of contract.

8. The offeror must be able to deliver and price all of the tests listed in the Donor Testing Schedule- Attachment 2.

9. The Offeror has the capability to submit the test result electronically that will interface with Blood Bank Computer Systems (BBCS) successfully and accurately i.e. the use of SSH File Transfer Protocol or Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFS)

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Technical Capability - Factor 1.

Subfactor 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach based on the information contained in the technical proposal to determine the extent of its understanding of the requirements, including the soundness of the offeror's proposed technical approach/methodology to effectively meet and comply with the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work to ensure successful performance of this procurement and any risks associated with the offeror's technical capability.

Subfactor 2: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Security Plan

The Offeror shall submit a PII Security Plan with its technical proposal that addresses each of the following items:

1. Compliance with the NDA attachment.

The following adjectival ratings will be used in evaluating each offeror’s technical proposal.

Management Capability- Factor 2

The Management Capability will be evaluated to the extent which the contractor and it’s subcontractor leverages each other’s capability and capacity for synergic purposes with clear defined roles and responsibilities to perform the services as required in the Statement of Work..

The Quality Control Plan will be evaluated for the extent to which it meets the Government's quality requirements as well as procedures for monitoring performance including identifying problems, explaining how they will be resolved, and how they will be documented and reported;

The Transition Plan will be evaluated to the extent to which it demonstrates effective minimization of interruption or delays to work in progress.

Past Performance-Factor 3

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting present and past performance evaluations, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal, any other source available to the Government and data obtained from other sources to include, but not limited, to data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

After the Government has evaluated Offerors’ past performance for recency and relevancy, the Government will evaluate Quality of Performance (how well the contractor has performed on contracts).

All Contractors shall provide a minimum of three (3) references. References should demonstrate the ability of the Contractor to perform jobs similar in scope to the size, nature and complexity of the outlined Proposal. The references shall include the:

· Company name, address, contact person, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, if available, and number of years Contractor has serviced the referenced account;

· Scope of Work performed within the past three (3) years for each referenced account.

· Total yearly value of the contract work performed

The Government will assign an Unknown /Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably, to Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record; or, the offeror’s performance record is not available; or, the information is inadequate such that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

“Recency” - “Recency” - Past performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Among those performance efforts qualifying as recent more weight will be given to those efforts occurring later in the period than those occurring earlier in the period. More recent efforts will be given greater weight than less recent efforts. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration.

“Relevancy” – Relevant performance includes products or services that are the same or similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the effort described in the solicitation.

The following ratings shall be used in assessing an offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy

The following ratings shall be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “unknown” past performance and their performance confidence assessment rating will be “unknown confidence (neutral).”

Price - Factor 4:

The proposed price will be evaluated but not scored. The price evaluation will determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable in relation to the solicitation requirements. The proposed price shall be entirely compatible with the technical proposal.

Although price is the least important evaluation factor, it will not be ignored. The degree of importance of the proposed price will increase with the degree of equality of the quotations in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

The option pricing proposed is applicable to the contract and will be evaluated.

Page 5 | 5