Attachment D Evaluation Criteria.rv1docx v2.pdf

CUI

SP8000-25-R-0002

CUI

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Attachment D

Evaluation Criteria

Antimony

The Government intends to award a fixed price contract, for the procurement of antimony trisulfide. The maximum contract quantity will be 32.5 metric tons (MT). The anticipated total purchase quantity, for the life of the contract, is 32.5 MT.

The proposal will then be evaluated using FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable standards to be determined eligible for award. The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate as best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

In accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b)(1), the evaluation factors listed below will be used to evaluate all proposals submitted. Contract award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors (Technical Acceptability, Delivery Schedule, and Past Performance). The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions.

In accordance with FAR 15.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors and FAR 15.305 Proposal evaluation procedures, the following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

Factor 2: Delivery Schedule

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Price

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

Evaluation will consider the contractor’s ability to comply with the following Sections of the Statement of Work.

FACTOR 1 - Technical Acceptability

• Subfactor 1.1—Material Description It lists the specifications/standards that the offeror can produce, and which fall within the specification listed on Table 1, Section 3.1.1 of the Statement of Work (SOW). The proposal must also provide a copy of the specifications/standards and indicate which type, class, or grade of material the offeror is able to produce.

• Subfactor 1.2—Testing: Certificate of Analysis and Independent Third-Party Testing It provides a sample of the Offeror’s Certificate of Analysis (COA) (see Section 3.2 of the SOW) from past deliveries of the solicited material or makes an affirmative statement that the Offeror has never sold the proposed antimony trisulfide.

It addresses, in detail, Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the SOW. The Contractor shall propose the name of an Independent Third-Party Sampler and Laboratory. Along with the Sampler’s & Laboratory’s qualifications and sampling/testing methodology.

• Subfactor 1.3—Packing It addresses, in detail, Section 4.3 of the SOW. Specifically what type of drums (compliant/non-compliant with UN 1A2), the type of gaskets, liners, pallets, and banding process will be used.

• Subfactor 1.4—Labeling Labeling will be required according to Section 4.4 of the SOW.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

RATING* (select one):

Factor 2—Delivery Schedule

(proposals shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis).

• Subfactor 2.1—Delivery Schedule A proposal’s delivery is considered acceptable if:

(1) It addresses the length of time needed to delivery material after the Government order.

(2) The Government can evaluate that the delivery schedule is realistic and meets the requirement of the acquisition.

A realistic schedule considers urgency of need, industries practices, market condition, transportation time, production time and production capability.

A delivery schedule will be determined technically unacceptable if it fails to conform to any one or more of the above listed requirements.

The Contractor shall provide all submittals required as stated in the solicitation:

• Submit a proposed delivery schedule for the material acquired.

DELIVERY SCHEDULE EVALUATION

RATING* (select one):

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Aspects of Past Performance Acceptability Evaluation:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum performance requirements for this solicitation. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertains to the work, products, and/or services

CUI

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 outlined in the solicitation requirements. The offeror shall identify its past performance information as requested herein. The Past Performance Acceptability assessment is based on recency, relevancy, and quality of historical contracts.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present or past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common elements of relevancy include similarity of service / support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract / teaming.

Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well an offeror performed on current or prior contracts.

The past performance evaluation process gathers information from an offeror’s customers on how well the offeror performed on current or past contracts and includes a history of successful completion of projects, a history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a history of staying on schedule and within budget.

Past Performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires, Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance / Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other sources available to the Government. The Past Performance evaluation process does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on present / past contracts.

The Offeror may submit up to three (3) previously awarded contracts, awarded within the past four years as of the date of this solicitation’s posting; with at least one year of completed performance as of the date of this solicitation’s posting; and of similar scope, size, and complexity to the current requirement. For each of the submitted past performance examples, the Offeror shall provide.

1. The name of the project and the contract ID number.

2. The name of the contracting agency or organization the contract was awarded by.

3. The date of the contract award and the contract award amount in dollars.

4. The date of the contract completion, or expected contract completion.

5. A brief description of the scope of work for the contract in question.

6. Identification of at least one point-of-contact at the organization that awarded the submitted contract, including (if applicable): the name of the point-of-contact; their current mailing address; phone number; and email address.

FACTOR 5 – PRICE

Offerors shall complete the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) pricing in Section B of the solicitation. The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the proposed pricing for each CLIN in Section B. The total evaluated price will be used for evaluation purposes. The Government will evaluate the proposal for price reasonableness using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(END OF PROVISION)