VT - Attachment C - Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 85 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Venous Thrombosis (VT)
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC026Q0014
About this file
This document is Attachment G: Evaluation Criteria for the Venus Thrombosis (VT) Request for Quotation (RFQ). The evaluation process consists of two sequential steps. Step One eliminates noncompliant quotes from further consideration, while all compliant quotes proceed to Step Two, which employs a trade-off evaluation methodology.
Step Two evaluation incorporates three factors: Technical Acceptability (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Price (Factor 3). Technical Acceptability and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than Price; however, Price importance increases proportionally as Technical Acceptability and Past Performance ratings become more equal among competing quoters. Technical Acceptability is assessed through two tiers: Scientific Merit Review (conducted by subject matter experts evaluating strengths, weaknesses, schedule, and qualifications) and Programmatic Relevancy Review (conducted by the Government to assess redundancy with ongoing research, alignment with solicitation intent, and study feasibility). The final Technical Acceptability rating combines both reviews. Past Performance is evaluated using quoter-provided information, references, and government sources including the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and SAM.gov. Price is evaluated for reasonableness and completeness using various price analysis techniques applied to the total evaluated price (TEP) and detailed pricing sheets. Rating definitions establish three tiers for Technical Acceptability (Outstanding, Acceptable, Unacceptable) and three tiers for Past Performance (Acceptable, Neutral, Unacceptable), with specific criteria for each rating level related to scientific merit, feasibility, research redundancy, and performance expectations.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment G – Evaluation Criteria Venus Thrombosis (VT)
Page 1 of 3 9/24/2026
EVALUATION CRITERIA
STEP ONE (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS
All Quoters will be evaluated for compliance with the RFQ requirements. Non-compliant quotes will be eliminated from this competition and will not be further evaluated.
All compliant quotes will then have their quote further evaluated using the factors listed in Step Two (2) – Trade-off.
STEP TWO (2) – TRADE-OFF
The Step Two Trade-Off evaluation consists of the following factors:
- Factor 1: Technical Acceptability
- Factor 2: Past Performance
- Factor 3: Price
Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Quoter’s Technical and Past Performance quotes
Page 2 of 3 9/24/2026
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY (MERIT + PROGRAMMATIC)
Technical Acceptability will be evaluated in two tiers:
1) Scientific Merit Review: a panel of subject matter experts will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the quote (to include schedule and qualifications) and provide a Scientific Merit Review Rating.
2) Programmatic Relevancy Review: The Government will assess quotes for redundancy/alignment/impact to ongoing funded research, meeting the solicitation intent, and feasibility of the study and provide a Programmatic Relevancy Rating.
The combination of Scientific Merit Review Rating and the Programmatic Relevancy Rating will generate a final Technical Acceptability rating (Please reference Definitions). Individual Scientific Merit and Programmatic Relevancy ratings will not be provided to respondents.
FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE
All compliant quotes will be evaluated to assess past performance.
In addition to the information provided by the Quoter and its references, the Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to performance using other sources of information such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov, or other sources known to the Government.
Adjectival ratings will be assigned for Past Performance (Please reference Definitions).
FACTOR 3: PRICE
The quote will be evaluated for price reasonableness and completeness. Reasonableness will be determined utilizing various price analysis techniques of the total evaluated price (TEP) and the Quoter’s detailed pricing sheet.
Page 3 of 3 9/24/2026
RATING DEFINITIONS
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY
Outstanding Quote has high scientific merit with strengths greatly outweighing weaknesses with no fatal flaws in the experimental design, minimal redundancy with ongoing research, is feasible to conduct, and will be impactful to NASA’s understanding/mitigation of the venous thrombosis risk.
Acceptable Quote has adequate scientific merit, minimal redundancy with ongoing research, is feasible to conduct, and may be tailored to be impactful to NASA’s understanding/mitigation of the venous thrombosis risk.
Unacceptable Quote does not have adequate scientific merit, is a duplication of effort with ongoing research, not feasible to conduct, or provide limited impact to NASA’s understanding/mitigation of the venous thrombosis risk.
FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE
Acceptable The Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Quoters without a past performance record or for whom past performance information is so sparse that no meaningful evaluation rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a Neutral rating.
Unacceptable The Government has no reasonable expectation that the Quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .