DHAPP Priorities and Evaluation Procedure

DHAPP continues to rely upon the vital support of various partners, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), in implementing HIV prevention, care and treatment programs across the globe. Each country has a customized plan to help the countries’ military bring its HIV/AIDS programs to sufficient scale to help reduce the spread of the epidemic and mitigate its impact. DHAPP’s current priority activities include the following:

· Institutional capacity building and developing military specific HIV strategic and operational plans that incorporate effective monitoring and evaluation procedures.

· Training of Master Trainers and Peer Educators

· “Troop level” HIV/AIDS prevention education and behavior change

· Evaluating specific prevention interventions in military contexts

· Providing infrastructure and equipment to support HIV testing, care and/or treatment.

· Increasing testing of all military personnel.

· Developing HIV laboratory diagnostic and monitoring capabilities.

· Increasing clinical capability and other human resources for health care of those infected with HIV.

· Developing or revising military specific HIV policies that specifically address leadership roles, gender norms, gender based violence, stigma and discrimination and structural components necessary for access to care.

· Increasing male circumcision (MC) in high prevalence countries who are supportive of MC as an effective prevention intervention.

· Providing peacekeeping prevention and care interventions in militaries that contribute zignificant peacekeepers.

Eligible organizations interested in applying for an award in response to this BAA are invited to submit a program concept paper via e-mail to DHAPP Office at nhrc-dhapp@med.navy.mil

If initial review by NHRC indicates the concept paper merits further consideration for funding, NHRC will request a full proposal.

****

NOTE: THIS EVALUATION PROCESS ONLY APPLIES TO COUNTRIES THAT:

(1) ARE APPLYING FOR DHAPP-SPECIFIC FUNDING

-or-

(2) ARE APPLYING FOR PEPFAR-SPECIFIC FUNDING THAT DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT A COUNTRY OPERATIONAL PLAN (COP)

THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR COUNTRIES THAT ARE APPLYING FOR PEPFAR-SPECIFIC FUNDING THAT HAVE TO SUBMIT A COUNTRY OPERATIONAL PLAN (COP) WILL INVOLVE THE USUAL PEPFAR REVIEWS.

****

1. Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be selected through a technical and business decision process with technical considerations being most important. Criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Any sub-criteria listed under a particular criterion are of equal importance to each other.

A. Technical Approach.

i. Goals and Objectives. The proposal clearly states the overall goal(s) of the program and has specific, measurable objectives. The proposal is relevant to established DHAPP priority activities (see section 6.2 above)

ii. Work Plan and Deliverables. The proposal contains sound scientific methods, an appropriate work plan described in sufficient detail and appropriate deliverables.

iii. Methodology for monitoring and evaluation procedures. The proposed plan includes a description of how the program will have an impact on the country’s military and clearly states the indicators of performance that will be used to monitor effectiveness.

iv. Schedule and milestones. The proposed plan for HIV prevention efforts is feasible and contains concrete, achievable schedule and milestones.

v. Relevance to the host country’s military. The proposal clearly describes the involvement of the host country military and the relevance of the proposed program to the needs, priorities, and circumstances of the host country’s military.

B. Qualifications.

Primary staff members are eligible to perform the work.

C. Cost.

Cost will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and eligibility. All costs must be listed, justified and match the scope of the effort.

2. Evaluation Panel

Technical and cost proposals submitted under this BAA will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 3.104-5 and 15.207. The cognizant NHRC/DHAPP Program Officer or other technical experts drawn from Government, with the assistance of industry and academia, will perform the evaluation of technical proposals. Cost proposals will be evaluated by Government business professionals. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, one or more support contractors may be utilized as subject-matter-expert technical or cost-pricing consultants. However, proposal selection and award decisions are solely the responsibility of Government personnel. Each support contractor’s employee having access to technical and cost proposals submitted in response to this BAA will be required to sign a non-disclosure statement prior to receipt of any proposal submissions.

3. Evaluation Process.

3.0. Based upon receipt of promising Concept Paper(s), the DHAPP Country Support Team (DCST) will request a full proposal using the appropriate rating sheet. The Offeror will receive a response either requesting a full proposal or noting the rationale for not requesting one.

3.1. Step 1. Full proposals be reviewed by a primary reviewer (generally a member of the DHAPP Country Support Team or a technical expert). Where available an appropriate point of contact at the cognizant US Embassy (for example: the DoD DHAPP Program Manager in country, Defense Attaché Office, Office of Defense Cooperation, or Security Assistance Office), and a representative from the applicable COCOM will be given the opportunity to review the proposal. The Embassy and COCOM reviewers will review the proposal’s merit and confirm that the proposal(s) meets the applicable theatre security cooperation guidance and other relevant US DoD policies. An additional reviewer may be asked to review the proposal. Proposals will be reviewed by a minimum of two such experts (DCST representative, COCOM representative, embassy representative, or other review) prior to review panel submittal.

3.2. Step 2. A team of Government technical experts, including experienced scientists, practitioners, and researchers working in the HIV field will evaluate the proposal’s technical approach, qualifications and cost for realism and reasonableness. This Proposal Evaluation Panel shall include reviewers external to the DHAPP staff. The Government will use selected support contractor personnel as technical advisors to the Government evaluators. Contractor personnel may also provide administrative assistance in the handling of proposals. All contractor personnel will be bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements to protect proprietary and source-selection sensitive information.

The Proposal Evaluation Panel will review all proposals, taking into consideration available input from the Step 1 reviewers. Host nation military willingness to support and work with the offer or will be factored into the final selection decision.

Panel members will rate each proposal using a range from unsatisfactory to outstanding (see details on evaluation ratings below), as well as, provide a vote on an overall recommendation to fund the proposal.

3.3. The Grants Officer will ensure all evaluations are fair and reasonable, and ensure primary staff members are eligible to perform work with the U.S. Government. The Grants Officer will also review costs for realism, reasonableness and eligibility.

4. Evaluation Ratings

Proposals will be rated using the following adjectives and then ranked according to their ratings.

Outstanding – Proposal/factor demonstrates a thorough and detailed understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses, if any. The proposal/factor represents a high probability of success with no apparent risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Above Average - Proposal/factor demonstrates good understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory - Proposal/factor demonstrates acceptable understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities meet performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a reasonable probability of success with overall moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal - Proposal/factor demonstrates a limited understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. Proposal/factor might be made satisfactory with additional information and without a major proposal revision.

Unsatisfactory - Proposal/factor demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The proposal/factor represents a very low probability of success with an extremely high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. Proposal/factor could only be made satisfactory with a major proposal revision.

Strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies are defined as:

Strength - any aspect of a proposal which, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance

Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level