Appendix F - Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

APPENDIX F - RFP A23-1128

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Dated 03/18/2023

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Ames Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “Ames Lab”) intends to acquire an X Ray System. The resultant subcontractor shall furnish all materials, personnel, facilities, support, and management necessary to meet these requirements.

1. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and small business size standard

The following information is to be used by the offeror in preparing its Representations and Certifications, specifically in completing the SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATIONS section:

• The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for this acquisition is 334516

Laboratory Equipment

• The small business size standard is 1000.

PLEASE NOTE: The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, but which proposes to furnish an item which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

2. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions

Offerors MUST agree to Ames Lab's terms and conditions or state any exceptions to the terms and conditions within your proposal response. No further objections to Ames Lab’s terms and conditions can be made after your proposal is submitted. Offerors understand and agree that by submitting a proposal, they are indicating acceptance of all Ames Lab Terms and Conditions, as identified as attachments to this

RFP, unless such a declaration is made in advance. Any offeror wishing to include additional terms or agreements must provide copies of such terms or agreements with its proposal. No additional terms or agreements will be considered if not submitted at the time of proposal.

Ames Lab cautions Offerors that taking exceptions to any term or condition of this RFP (including submitting any alternate proposals that requires relaxation of a requirement) may make an offer unacceptable. AMES LAB reserves the sole discretion to consider exceptions to terms and conditions or to reject any exceptions. All exceptions must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal.

B. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The information you provide in your Proposal Package will be the basis for the evaluation of your company.

The following instructions will establish the acceptable minimum requirements for the format and contents of proposals. Special attention is directed to the requirements for technical and price proposals to be submitted in accordance with these instructions.

Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those enough to present a complete and effective response to this solicitation are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the

Offeror's lack of cost consciousness. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive visual and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor wanted.

1. Separation of Technical and Price Proposals

Each proposal shall reflect the unique capabilities and approaches of the offeror. Duplicate proposals are not acceptable. The proposal must be prepared in two parts: a "Technical Proposal" and a "Price

Proposal." Each of the parts shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, evaluation of the other. The technical proposal must not include pricing data relating to individual salary information, indirect cost rates or amounts, fee amounts (if any), and total costs. The technical proposal should disclose your technical approach in as much detail as possible, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the technical proposal instructions.

2. Creating and Naming Files

a) Create one ZIP file of your TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PACKAGE, including all attachments. The

Technical Proposal should be created in a PDF format that enables word searches to the maximum extent practicable. Forms and/or documents requiring signature(s) may be scanned but must be merged into the Technical Proposal PDF file.

b) Create one ZIP file of your PRICE PROPOSAL PACKAGE, including all attachments. DO NOT

CONVERT THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET TO PDF. Include the completed and signed Solicitation

Cover page in your PRICE PROPOSAL PACKAGE.

c) File naming convention: It is requested that the filenames for your Technical Proposal, and Price

Proposal include the name of the offeror, the solicitation number and the type of proposal (i.e., Technical, Price). Examples:

Technical Proposal:

XYZCompany RFP No. XX Technical.pdf

Price Proposal:

XYZCompany RFP No. XX Price.zip

To ensure your Proposal is given full consideration, offerors must do the following:

• Read these instructions carefully to understand the requirements.

• Provide a complete Proposal Package in accordance with the instructions herein.

• Provide all information outlined under Evaluation Criteria.

• Provide name of Firm’s proposed lead/point of contact on the Offeror Cover page.

Dated 03/18/2023

PART I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Offerors shall submit a complete Technical Proposal package which includes the following:

o The solicitation number;

o The time specified in the solicitation for receipt of offers;

o The name, address, and telephone number of the offeror;

o A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary;

o Terms of any express warranty;

o Acknowledgement of Solicitation Amendments/Addendums (if any);

o Past performance information, when included as an evaluation factor, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers/email addresses, and other relevant information);

o A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration;

A. Basis for Subcontract Award

THIS IS A BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION. PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS ARE

MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE. Award will be made to that Offeror or Offerors whose proposal contains the combination of technical factors offering the overall best value to AMES LAB. This will be determined by comparing differences in the value of technical and/or management features with differences in price. AMES LAB is more concerned with obtaining superior technical or management features than with making an award at the lowest overall price. However, AMES LAB will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical or management features. The importance of price may increase as the difference in technical ratings decreases.

B. PASS/FAIL FACTORS

Offerors will be required to submit documentation to support the following Pass/Fail factors which will be submitted as a part of their Price Proposal package. These factors will NOT be reviewed, evaluated or scored by the technical evaluation team, but rather by experienced Procurement personnel knowledgeable about such documentation. Should additional resources be required to fully make a determination, Procurement will access those resources as required. Below are the Pass/Fail (Go, No-Go) factors for this solicitation:

Dated 03/18/2023

PASS/FAIL FACTOR 1 - Financial Condition and Capability

Offeror's financial condition and capability will be evaluated to determine if adequate resources are available and committed for performance. During the evaluation, financial references may be requested and contacted to determine the Offeror's financial stability during past years. The adequacy of available working capital to facilitate performance under the subcontract will be evaluated.

The evaluation of this information will be to determine, on a Pass/Fail basis, the financial health of an offering subcontractor, and to determine if there are foreseeable and knowable financial issues that would threaten or undermine the success of a given subcontractor should they be awarded a subcontract resulting from this solicitation, and ultimately to minimize the overall risk to AMES LAB and the government.

Demonstrated proof of financial stability will be determined by a review of the following documentation:

1. Offeror’s credit rating report obtained from one of the credit monitoring bureaus, e.g., Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, or Dun & Bradstreet; or

2. Offeror shall provide a copy of a letter from its bank stating the following:

o Length of time the supplier has been doing business with the bank.

o Average monthly account balance (in general terms).

o Extent of credit available and terms of availability.

o The bank’s rating of the supplier as a business customer.

o Name and telephone number and/or email address of individuals at the bank who can be contacted by AMES LAB personnel for additional information.

Offerors that do not receive a passing score in the above category will be eliminated from further evaluation.

PASS/FAIL FACTOR 2 – Guaranteed Delivery of system by Sept. 15, 2023

Offerors must provide a statement guaranteeing delivery of the system in it’s entirety by September 15 th, 2023. Offeror will provide the latest date to receive an award in the form of a purchase order that will guarantee delivery by 3:00 p.m. CST on Sept.15, 2023. With this guarantee it is understood that Ames

National Laboratory will bear no financial responsibility for costs incurred by the offeror for the purchase of parts, labor, overhead or any other costs incurred should the system not arrive at the destination location of Ames National Laboratory by 3:00 p.m. CST on Sept. 15, 2023. No late deliveries will be accepted and the order will be cancelled unless Ames Laboratory agrees to consideration offered due to the offeror’s non-compliance with the guaranteed delivery date.

C. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Offeror responses will be evaluated against the technical evaluation factors below. The factors and subfactors below are listed in the order of relative importance.

SUPPLIER CAPABILTY

Factor 1 – Technical Competence

Subfactors:

1.a Radiation safety enclosure 1.b X-ray generator

1.c Microfocus sealed X-ray tube with Ag anode

1.d Beam tubes with appropriate collimator

1.e High speed 4-circle Kappa or fixed chi goniometer

1.f XYZ goniometer head High pressure kits

1.g 2-dimensional array detector on a motorized track

1.h Cryosystem (80-400K)

1.i Telescope/camera with monitor

1.j High Pressure Kits

1.k A computer for instrument operations (Must be Energy Star rated)

1.l Program, suite, and crystallographic software

1.m Option of dual anode source

SUPPLIER PAST PERFORMANCE RECORD

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Past Performance will be evaluated for RELEVANCE and for CONFIDENCE. Installation support and

Application Training will be evaluated for CONFIDENCE only.

Comparable Experience

A project will be considered as comparable if it meets the following criteria:

1. The project was completed within the last three years.

2. The contract cost is at or greater than the proposed cost for this solicitation.

3. A description of the work which demonstrates the relevance AMES LAB, DOE, State of Iowa or other government agencies, scientific institutions, and clients.

4. You were the prime contractor for the project.

Quantity of Comparable Experience Projects

Submit three (3) projects only.

Note: If fewer than three (3) projects are submitted, offeror will not receive maximum score; if more than three projects are submitted, only the first three will be submitted to the evaluation team.

Evaluation of Comparable Projects

1. Example projects that closely match the scope, complexity, location, and value of the solicitation project will receive a higher rating. Criteria include:

a. Show the level of effort involved in terms of performance, personnel (number of individuals and approximate hours), resources and price.

b. Include specifics regarding the relevant functional / technical areas and skills gained such as technology, market expertise, etc.

c. Note experience of the proposed team.

2. Provide information and example projects that best illustrate your company’s capability, experience and performance. You must provide all the information requested for each project. Photographs of projects are desirable but not required.

3. You must provide current references (name, company name, telephone number and address) for your comparable projects. If the evaluation team is unable to contact the references listed to verify experience and performance, that project may not be considered.

4. Projects not meeting all the criteria or missing project information may not be considered.

Offerors are advised that AMES LAB will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the development of performance risk assessments.

AMES LAB RESERVES THE RIGHT TO USE PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION OBTAINED

FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THOSE THAT MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE OFFEROR, E.G.

GOVERNMENT REPOSITORIES. THIS PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION MAY BE USED

FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE. AMES LAB DOES NOT

ASSUME THE DUTY TO SEARCH FOR DATA TO CURE THE PROBLEMS IT FINDS IN THE

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OFFEROR OR CONTAINED IN OTHER GOVERNMENT

REPOSITORIES. THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING THOROUGH AND COMPLETE PAST

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION REMAINS WITH THE OFFEROR.

D. Importance of Technical Evaluation factors:

FACTOR 1 is significantly more important than FACTOR 2.

Regarding subfactors 1.a through 1.m under FACTOR 1—

- subfactor 1.b and 1.c are the most important subfactors.

- subfactors 1.g, 1.h and 1.j are slightly less important than 1.b and 1c.

- subfactor 1.k is the next most important factor.

- subfactors 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.i and 1.l are all equal in importance and slightly less than 1.k.

- subfactor 1.m is least important.

E. Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors:

Technical and past performance, when combined, are MORE IMPORTANT,when compared to price.

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance and Installation Support and Application Training

Offeror's past performance information and installation support and application training (Confidence only) will be evaluated as a part of the technical evaluation. However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable. The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to AMES LAB, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

AMES LAB will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance.

The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be a product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror's performance on a list of contracts but rather the product of subjective judgment by

AMES LAB after it considers relevant information.

When assessing performance risks, AMES LAB will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror's record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror's record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance;

the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

AMES LAB will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.

The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the offeror.

Factors 1 will be scored using the adjectival scoring matrix listed in Section E. below. Factor 2 will be scored using the adjectival scoring matrix listed in Section F. below. THE PRICE PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE

ADJECTIVALLY RATED. The Price Proposal will be judged on realistic costs and the evaluated cost to

AMES LAB.

F. Technical Adjectival Ratings:

The Technical Proposal for Factor 1 will be scored using the adjectival scoring matrix listed in Table 1., below.

Table 1 – Technical Evaluation Factor Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival

Rating Rating Definition

Unacceptable Proposal does not address the evaluation factor(s) or sub-factor(s) and poses an extremely high-performance risk.

Poor

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach or indicated an understanding of the requirements of the factor(s)/sub-factor(s). The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths and pose a high or extremely high-performance risk.

Fair

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and minimal understanding of the requirements of the factor(s)/sub-factor(s). Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting and may pose a moderate to high performance risk.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and complete understanding of the requirements of the factor(s)/sub-factor(s). Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses and pose low to moderate performance risk.

Very Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and complete understanding of the requirements of the factor(s)/sub-factor(s) on a level that exceeds that which would be scored at as “Good”. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses and pose a low performance risk.

Excellent

Proposal meets or exceeds requirements and indicates in extensive detail an exceptional approach and superior understanding of the requirements of the factor(s)/sub-factor(s). Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses and pose low performance risk.

G. Past Performance and Installation Support and Application Training Adjectival Ratings

Past Performance will be evaluated for RELEVANCE and for CONFIDENCE.

Installation support and application training will be evaluated for CONFIDENCE only.

The ratings for the RELEVANCE of past performance are shown in Table 2., below:

Table 2 – Past Performance RELEVANCE

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second step of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on its contracts. The ratings for the CONFIDENCE assessments are shown in Table 3., below:

Table 3 – Past Performance CONFIDENCE

Rating Definition

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, AMES LAB has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, AMES LAB has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, AMES LAB has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, AMES LAB has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

PART II – PRICE PROPOSAL

1. Price Proposal

Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Offeror shall provide a price proposal which shall include:

o Line item pricing for all major components which make up the system as a whole as well as separate lines for consumables and installation.

o Any Discount offered for each line item.

o A statement guaranteeing delivery on or before 3:00 p.m. CST on Sept. 15, 2023.

o Shipping terms of FOB Destination (Shipping costs included in price or pre-pay and add.)

o Payment terms of Net 30 upon installation and acceptance.

o Actual lead time for delivery (ARO) o Export classification control numbers (ECCN’s) for all items.

o A statement that Ames Laboratory may accept this offer up to 60 days.

o Offeror’s “Remit to” address, if different than mailing address.

o ICPT BOA, SCMS BOA, GSA FSS, or NASA SEWP contract number and pricing information, if applicable.

2. Representations/Certifications

Offerors shall review, complete and return with its proposal response the attached Representations and

Certifications document.

3. W-9 or W- BEN

4. The solicitation number and RFP close date and time.