Nickel Niobium Eval Factors.docx

Defense Logistics Agency Nickel Niobium Evaluation Factors Selection Process This procurement is for the purchase of nickel niobium alloy and is projected to result in the award of a single indefinite delivery requirements type contract (ID RTC) contract. This procurement will be conducted using the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) process. The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

Evaluation Factors Proposals will be evaluated using the LPTA process. The evaluation factors are technical approach, past performance, and cost/price.

Basis for award. Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of the non-price evaluation factors as defined below. Technical and past performance will be evaluated on the basis of acceptable or unacceptable. Technical evaluations will be based on the vendor’s compliance with solicitation instructions and whether or not the technical response addresses all requirements within the SOW including evaluation of the draft sampling and test plans. Past performance information will be based on CPARS and other government data systems. In the event that a vendor does not have past performance data in these systems, the contracting officer will request government points of contact or previous contracts for references. A vendor without past performance information will be rated as neutral, which is considered acceptable. Pricing will be evaluated for accuracy, fairness, reasonableness, and completeness.

Evaluation Factors.

1. Technical Vendors must provide a technical response limited to 10 pages (including cover sheets and appendices) outlining their approach to meeting all requirements listed in the SOW. Additionally, vendors must provide a previously completed certificate of analysis (COA) from a product the vendor has produced, a draft safety data sheet (SDS), sampling plan, and draft testing plan. The draft SDS, sampling plan, and testing plan cannot exceed 10 pages each (including cover sheets and appendices). Ratings will be acceptable or unacceptable and based on the technical proficiency and certifications that the vendor provides in their response.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the government’s minimum requirements. All requirements within the statement of work (SOW) are minimum requirements that must be met. Technical approach will be evaluated by the requiring activity on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The vendor’s technical approach will be evaluated based on the vendor’s stated methods/processes for completion of and compliance with all requirements as identified in the SOW. Additionally, the draft sampling and test plans will be reviewed for compliance with SOW requirements and rated either acceptable or unacceptable. Please note that copying/pasting of SOW requirements does not constitute an acceptable response.

2. Past Performance The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum SOW requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the SOW. The contracting officer will evaluate past performance information based on CPARS and other government data systems. This evaluation will be based relevancy, recency, and quality as defined below.

a. Relevancy. Past performance data will be reviewed for relevancy to the current solicitation. Relevant past performance data is a stronger predictor of future success.

b. Recency. Past performance data will be reviewed for recency, which is defined as performance within the past three years.

c. Quality. Evaluation of past performance data will be based on actual ratings received in CPARS for technical/quality, schedule, cost, and management. If CPARS ratings are not available, the contracting officer may request up to three government POCs to provide past performance information.

In the event that an offeror does not have past performance data in these systems, the contracting officer will request government points of contact or previous contracts for references. If an offeror has no past performance information, the offeror will be rated as neutral, which is acceptable.

3. Price Vendors must submit pricing in Excel format using the attached CLIN structure spreadsheet. The spreadsheet must be submitted unprotected with all formulas in-tact and all dollar value cells limited to two decimal places.

Proposals must demonstrate to the government’s satisfaction that the vendor will provide an approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each requirement in the SOW. The government will evaluate the submissions on the basis of the material presented in the written proposals. The contracting officer may or may not have discussions with vendors after receipt of proposals. Note: The government may use quote information provided for one factor to assess other factors if the government deems it appropriate.