Unique Identification Tagging Project

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation is being issued as Request for Quotations (RFQ) NIHLM2017923MH. The resultant order will be a firm-fixed price contract. In accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13.5, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) intends to procure Unique Identification Tagging services for NIH's Division of Comparative Medicine (DCM). This acquisition is Full and Open. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code is 541690 - Other Scientific and Technological Consulting Services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Rigor and reproducibility have become an important subject of biomedical research policies due to the realization that the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even if findings are supported by the original scientific observations. Recent studies (PeerJ, DOI 10.7717, 2013) have reported that 54% of the resources public shed in journal articles from several major biomedical fields are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor or reporting requirements. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is committed to promoting rigorous and transparent research in all areas of science supported by a variety of grant programs. Recently, updates to application instructions and review language intended to enhance reproducibility through rigor and transparency have been implemented for research grants and mentored career development awards. One of the key requirements for applicants is the need to address key biological and/or chemical resources which include, but are not limited to, cell lines, animals, specialty chemicals, antibodies and other biologics. These biological resources are an integral part of the research and contribute to the experimental variability. Another important aspect of improving reproducibility of experimental results is the support that NIH provides to research resources. The Division of Comparative Medicine (DCM), one of the Office of Research Infrastructure Program's (ORIP's) major components, supports research to develop new animal models (e.g. rodents, invertebrates, nonhuman primates), cultured cells, biological materials, reagents and informatics systems, as well as shared resources with the goal to distribute, characterize, maintain, and archive these diverse resources for use by other biomedical researchers. In such resources, organisms and biologicals are produced under defined conditions and are delivered to the scientists with a guaranteed assurance of the quality and reproducibility of the phenotype and properties as well as access to information regarding the description and original source of the biomaterials. Unfortunately, the current publication practices do not make it easy to identify when these or other resources are used. Even if resources are cited, it is very difficult to conduct a global search of the literature to extract that information. The major reason is the absence of standards and sufficient identifying information for such resources. Researchers also contribute to this problem since, despite the existence of nomenclature authorities, they often ambiguously identify in their publications the exact source of the biomaterials used for the experiments. These constraints create a need for the development and maintenance of a citation system for research resources, which will enable authors to authenticate biological resources by generating, using, and finding stable unique identifiers. Such a system will serve the biomedical community to correctly report, accurately replicate and extend findings from animal research resources and will allow resource distributors and funding agencies to monitor the use of these model organisms and biomaterials. One of the effective solutions to the problem is the creation and use of research resource identifiers on which all stakeholders, such as scientists, government representatives, publishers, and commercial producers, can agree. SCOPE OF WORK The objective of this requirement is to support a method/system of creating and maintaining biological resource identifiers that will allow NIH personnel, as well as the research community, to monitor the use and conduct citation analysis of the supported DCM/ORIP research resources, such as animal models, cultured cells and other biological materials. This contract shall provide maintenance and further develop the citation system for research resources supported by the DCM. The system shall allow the following: a. Uniquely identify the particular resource; b. Be machine processable; c. Be outside any paywall; and d. Be uniform across publishers. The system shall maintain and update, as needed, existing indexes already assigned to the primary catalog data from DCM supported resources and shall curate new sources of the data when they become available. A very important function of the system is the dissemination of knowledge about the unique identifiers. The system will also provide assistance to biomedical investigators in the assignment and use of unique identifiers as a means of fulfilling the obligation of NIH-funded investigators to adhere to NIH policy on rigor and reproducibility. The results of the use of the implemented system shall be reported to participating model organism repositories as well as to NIH staff. CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS Collaboration The Contractor shall furnish all necessary labor, materials, supplies, equipment and services to successfully carry out the SOW. It is expected that the Contractor will work collaboratively with federal staff as well as non-governmental third party personnel and stakeholders. This collaboration may include day-to-day activities, planning, development, and creating and sharing documentation. The Contractor will act, where possible, to minimize the effort required by the participating Resource Centers. Only the Contracting Officer has the authority to make changes to the terms and conditions of the contract. Contractor Tasks Task 3.2.1 - Maintenance of Existing Indexes Contractor shall maintain the "integrated animal" index and all of the subparts of its various databases. Maintenance is defined as follow: a. Monthly verification of a subset of links (typical numbers are 5 per source); b. Monthly outreach to all sources via an e-mail list shall include, but not limited to, the status of the system, version of the catalog of the resources currently in use or being updated, news about the service in general, and statistics on the reference to the resource in the published literature; and c. Weekly verification that the data in the index is uncorrupted and that totals have not changed unexpectedly. In case of changes, the Contractor curator shall investigate the errors with programming staff and correct them. After the investigation and correction are completed, if necessary, the Contractor shall report to the resources. Applicable databases include the following: - Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center; - A Resource Center for Tetrahymena thermophile; - Development of Validated Drosophila in vivo RNAi Models of Human Diseases; - Zebrafish International Resource Center; - Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center at Indiana University; - Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center (MMRRC) at the Jackson Laboratory; - MMRRC at UC Davis; - Caenorhabditis Genetics Center; - The Mouse Mutant Resource; - Cre Driver Strain Resources; - Drosophila Genomics Resource Center; - MMRRC at University of North Carolina; - MMRRC at the University of Missouri; - National Swine Resource and Research Center; - National Xenopus Resource Center; - Rat Resource and Research Center; - Sperm Stem Cell Libraries for Biological Research; - The Special Mouse Strain Resource at The Jackson Laboratory; and - Xiphophorus Genetic Stock Center. Task 3.2.2 - Curation of New Resources In coordination with the DCM program staff, the Contractor shall add data from new resources when such information becomes available. This shall include at least two new resources per year for the duration of the contract. The criteria to determine suitable new resources will be based on the scientific importance of that resource to the biomedical community, stakeholder needs, and availability of funding. Task 3.2.3 - Dissemination of Unique Identification System Under this task, the Contractor shall perform the following: a. Disseminate - using the Contractor's website, social media, presentations at biomedical meetings, publications, etc. - the idea that unique identifiers shall help authors/grantees meet rigor and transparency guidelines; b. Write one or more press releases per year around the activities of the standards groups (as recommended by DCM program staff) to be posted on specified websites. Press releases could be written at the end of the calendar year to update an unusually high level of citation of specific resources; c. Maintain applicable project webpages to reflect the state of the project; d. Create and execute a plan to improve journal staff knowledge about and adoption of rigor and reproducibility guidelines; e. Reach out to 12 journals per year, with priority being given to journals covering broad biomedical fields, as a means of communicating with a wider community; and f. Present or exhibit at one scientific meeting per year, as appropriate. The meeting venue shall include larger scientific society meetings, such as the Society for Neuroscience, the American Society for Cell Biology or other similar venues. The exhibit shall encourage author/grantee participation in the unique identifiers initiative. Task 3.2.4 - Reports to NIH and Model Organism Repositories Annual reports consisting of summary statistics and a simple file format file of all raw data about the use of organisms in the biomedical literature shall be provided to the organism repositories and the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall meet annually (or by webinar) with model organism repository owners to report on progress. In the event that organism repository owners are unable to make it, materials should be provided to them by email or the file transfer protocol (FTP) as data size dictates. During year one of the award, the contractor shall create a dashboard feature within its infrastructure where the Model Organism Repositories and interested NIH program officers can view a current citations report. Weekly updates shall be provided as regular data is released. Organism repository owners shall be able to view and download the data or select push notifications in standard data formats such as Comma Separated Values (CSV) or xml. The Contractor shall make reasonable accommodations to present the data as requested by the repositories/NIH. The NIH Program Officials shall have a - master' section where the current data of the entire project shall be accessible, downloadable, and graphically represented. Task 3.2.5 - Final Progress Report All data gathered and code written as part of this contract shall be made available electronically to the NIH Contracting Officer within one month prior to the end of the contract. Curated data shall be covered under a CC-0 license to ensure maximum reuse by organism repositories or other users. Deliverables and Delivery Schedule DELIVERABLE TIMEFRAME OF DELIVERY Monthly Updates Every month from the time of award Dashboard During first year of award Annual Summary Report on Statistics Every year from the time of award CSV or xml data File Every year from the time of award Annual Progress Report (Only if owners not able to attend annual meeting) Every year from the time of award Final Progress Report One month before the end of the contract PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE One (1) Base Year (12-months) with Three (3) 12-month Option Years. PROMOTING EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT SPENDING On September 21, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-11-35 , entitled, "Eliminating Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government," emphasizing the President's priority to ensure that the Government operates with the utmost efficiency and eliminates unnecessary or wasteful spending. This was followed by the Executive Order on Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government (EO 13576 ) and the Executive Order on Promoting Efficient Spending ( EO 13589 ). On January 3, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued the memorandum "HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences and Meetings, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing, and Publications" (See http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/effspendpol_memo.html ). In support of these administrative directives, the NIH issued a January 30, 2012 Memorandum entitled "NIH Guidance Related to the HHS Policies on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences, Conference Grants and Meetings, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing and Publications." (See http://oamp.od.nih.gov/ ) Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will: - Specifically prohibit the use of contract funds for the provision of food for meals, light refreshments and beverages for any NIH funded meeting or conference; and - Limit the procurement of meeting space, promotional items, printing, and publications. EVALUATION CRITERIA The award decision will be based on the evaluation factors and significant subfactors that have been tailored to this acquisition. Technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the purchase order; however, price is also important to the overall award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. The Government can make tradeoffs among price and technical factors in determining which Offeror provides the best value by awarding to other than the lowest price Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Offerors are advised that award will be made to that Offeror whose quote provides the best overall value to the Government. In determining which quote represents the best value and results in the lowest overall price alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government's needs, the Government shall evaluate quotes using the following technical evaluation criteria, which are listed in the order of relative importance with weights assigned for evaluation processes: Evaluation Criteria (Total Points - 100) Factor 1 - Technical Approach - 50 Points The proposal will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates the Offeror's ability to meet the SOW objectives, tasks, deliverables, and complies with standards and guidelines as well as industry best practices. This factor includes the following subfactors: 1. Proposal addresses existing problems with the unique identification of DCM's research resources. - 10 points 2. Demonstrated ability of proposed technology platforms, analytical and modeling tools, and validation approaches to successfully be integrated and achieve the objective and tasks of the SOW. - 5 points 3. Proposed changes to concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, and services that drive scientific reporting and authentication of biomedical research. - 5 points 4. Demonstrated ability to promote and implement - FAIR' principles (i.e. make research data - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) - 5 points 5. Demonstrated ability of proposed technology platforms to have significant advantages in performance. - 5 points 6. Demonstrated ability of the proposed primary technology platforms to sufficiently validate to begin producing data in their first year at the necessary scale to accomplish the goals of the project during its 4-year period. - 5 points 7. Demonstrated effectiveness of proposed refinement, improvement or new application of the concepts, approaches and technologies. - 5 points 8. Demonstrated effectiveness of proposed description of how the Offeror would capitalize on existing public and/or private resources. Proposals shall identify organizational partners and support mechanisms that may be available to enable continued development and maintenance of the standard, tool, or resource. - 5 points 9. Demonstrated scalability of proposed approach, tools, platforms, resources, etc. to other resources used in biomedical research. - 5 points Factor 2 - Personnel - 15 Points Personnel information shall be an indicator of the Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror's personnel performance will be considered. Resumes of personnel proposed for this project shall be submitted. This factor includes the following subfactors: 1. Offerors shall demonstrate the proposed PDs/PIs and other personnel's qualifications to successfully perform their proposed roles. - 4 points 2. Offerors shall demonstrate proposed personnel's experience and training with utilizing the proposed technology platforms and related analytical tools. Offerors shall also demonstrate the proposed personnel has relevant experience with and an ongoing record of accomplishments in developing and managing electronic systems for the authentication of key biological reagents, including animal resources. - 4 points 3. Demonstrated experience of proposed personnel in successfully communicating with animal and biological material resources, collecting required information, maintaining the databases and providing/reporting the results of the use analysis. - 4 points 4. Demonstrated experience of proposed personnel's track record of disseminating novel tools and techniques broadly and working with scientific literature publishing resources. - 3 points Factor 3 - Organizational Capacity - 15 Points This factor will evaluate the organizational capacity of the Offeror's facilities and research environment. This factor includes the following subfactors: 1. Demonstrated ability of the proposed organizational environment (facilities, research environment, management structure and oversight, teaming/partnering relationships, problem-solving capabilities, quality control, etc.) to facilitate and contribute to the successful performance of the SOW. - 4 point 2. Offeror's proposed organizational support, equipment and other physical resources and their demonstrated adequacy and availability to the investigators. - 5 points 3. Demonstrated benefits of proposed features of the organizational environment, infrastructure, and/or personnel. - 3 points 4. Demonstrated effectiveness and availability of resources within the scientific environment to support electronic information handling. - 3 points Factor 4 - Past Performance - 20 Points The evaluation of this factor will provide an indication of the Offeror's ability to staff and manage activities similar in function, scope and complexity to this requirement, and will indicate the likelihood of the Offeror's success. To evaluate this factor, the Government will review relevant past performance information provided in proposals, past performance assessments from Offeror's customers and/or relevant past performance information obtained through other sources including Government databases (e.g. PPIRS). This factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following subfactors: 1. The relevant past performance and working experience of the Offeror and any proposed teaming partners will be evaluated to assess the Offeror's approach. The evaluation of this factor will include an evaluation of the quality of the Offeror's past products and services, its timeliness of performance, success in controlling costs, its approach to recruiting, hiring, training, retraining a fully qualified workforce and the experience of its personnel. Offerors shall identify and provide contact information for past (within the last 3 years) or current customers on projects similar to this requirement, information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken by Offeror. - 7 points. 2. Customer Satisfaction - The Offeror will be evaluated based on assessments of their past performance by past (within the last 3 years) or current customers. The Offeror's performance, quality of service, timeliness of service, professionalism, achievement of project goals, risk mitigation approach, corrective actions and overall customer satisfaction will be evaluated. - 13 points FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) CLAUSES The following provisions and clauses apply to this acquisition and are incorporated by reference. Full text may be found at https://www.acquisition.gov/Far FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive orders PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS All interested parties shall submit electronic responses to Mario Henriquez at Mario.henriquez@nih.gov and Sally Boakye at boakyes@mail.nih.gov. Responses must be received no later than 2:00 P.M. EST on Tuesday February 21, 2017 and shall not exceed 20 single-sided pages in length, exclusive of the cover page and letter, table of contents, appendices, and resumes. Please reference solicitation number NIHLM2017923MH on all correspondence to this notice. Inquiries regarding this notice shall be submitted electronically to Mario.henriquez@nih.gov and boakyes@mail.nih.gov by no later than 10:00 A.M. EST on Monday February 13, 2017. The proposal submitted in response to this RFQ shall be prepared in two (2) parts and be clearly identified as a "Technical Proposal" and "Business Proposal." Proposals shall be in sufficient detail to permit proper evaluation, negotiation and/or acceptance thereof. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price; however, resource information (such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.) must be contained in the technical proposal so that the Contractor's understanding of the Statement of Work may be evaluated. In order to receive an award, Contractors must have valid registration and certification in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) through the System of Award Management (SAM) www.sam.gov.