Attachment_C_-_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

SP8000-16-Q-0003

ATTACHMENT C

Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to award contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. The Government intends to award one firm-fixed-price contract if it proves to be what is in the best interest of the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability or unacceptability only and shall not be rated. Offerors must be determined to be responsible according to the standards of FAR Subpart 9 to be eligible for award. Award will be based on the lowest evaluated price of the proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. Any Offeror who has submitted a technically acceptable proposal and who has been found to have an acceptable or neutral past performance will then have the proposal evaluated for the lowest price.

The Government will use the following non-price factors to determine acceptability of a proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Requirements

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factors 1 through 2 shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), Past Performance Evaluation). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

To be considered acceptable and eligible for award, an Offeror must address separately all the factors set forth in accordance with the instructions of the solicitation. A major item and/or gross omission which preclude meeting solicitation objectives which cannot be corrected prior to or during discussions without major revision or complete resubmission of the proposal will cause a proposal to be found technically unacceptable.

The determination of the competitive range will include all proposals which are considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. A proposal is considered acceptable if it

(i) it addresses itself to all the essential requirement of the RFP, (ii) shows the Offeror understands all essential requirements of the RFP, and has demonstrated a full capability to perform the prospective requirements, (iii) meets the technical requirements, and (iv) although some discussion of the proposal may be desirable, the proposal is complete to the extent that an award could be made on its present terms.

A proposal will be considered unacceptable if award cannot be made on the present terms of the proposal, and corrective action would require essentially rewriting the proposal or require the submission of an approach which would be new or almost entirely different from that previously proposed.

An “Unacceptable” rating on the Technical Evaluation Factor (1) shall render the proposal ineligible for award, or if discussions are held, a proposal found to be “unacceptable for award” (as defined above) may be excluded from the competitive range. An initial proposal evaluation of “Unacceptable” in the Past Performance Factor (2) will not automatically eliminate an Offeror from the competitive range, but may be considered in making the competitive range determination if communications have been conducted pursuant to FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i).

Communications shall be held with Offerors whose past performance information is the determining key factor keeping them from being placed within the competitive range if the communications are necessary to allow them to address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror(s) had not have a prior opportunity to respond.

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions. However, if it is determined that discussions are required, then the determination of the competitive range will include all proposals which are considered to be technically acceptable and may include those that are considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, unless the competitive range is further limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Those Offerors whose proposals do not fall into the competitive range will be notified as required by FAR 15.503(a)(1). Offerors will be notified in writing with a concise explanation of their proposal deficiencies without jeopardizing the competitive range.

Those Offerors whose proposals are determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be in the competitive range will be contacted by the Contract Specialist for discussions. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). If verbal discussions are held they will be followed by written reiteration of the discussion. Written discussions may also be held, whereby the Government will provide a written list of discussion questions to each Offeror, as appropriate. In the case of both verbal and written discussions, the Offeror will provide a written response to the discussion question and revision to the proposal as required. This response and revision (if required) will be marked accordingly to distinguish it as a supplement to their original proposal. More than one round of discussions may be held. At the conclusion of final discussions, the Government will request each Offeror in the competitive range to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR).

The FPR will be evaluated as to its revised technical, past performance, and/or pricing approach in response to the issues identified during discussions. The Government then intends, in accordance with the evaluation factors forward set forth below, to award a contract to the Offeror who has submitted the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. A proposal will be determined ineligible for award if any factor is evaluated as “Unacceptable.”

Factor 1: Technical Requirements

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has an acceptable Technical Approach. To be determined acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate to have the necessary expertise, experience and facility capability to successfully meet all solicitation requirements.

The contractor must be able to produce ferrodysprosium, defined by the DLA standards referenced in the Statement of Work (SOW, Section 3.1.). The material of each grade must meet its corresponding chemical composition standards defined in the SOW Section 3.1.2.

The Offeror must demonstrate the capability to meet product chemical compositions, material structural characteristics, and the ability to produce the product within the required period. The offeror shall be able to demonstrate this capability through product specification sheets, Safety Data Sheets (SDS), examples of Certificates of Analysis (COA). This factor will be considered unacceptable if the Contractor’s technical approach is determined unacceptable.

Based on this evaluation, the Factor will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate using information in the proposal and information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers, subcontractors, etc. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent (within the last 3 years) past performance information that pertain to the products and/or deliveries under a similar contract as outlined in the solicitation requirements. Documentation of recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated for satisfactory performance considering a pattern of meeting material standards and a pattern of timely delivery.

The performance relevancy ratings are Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The Government will only consider relevant past performance data of the Offeror. To be considered relevant, the Offeror must demonstrate past execution of similar contracts in terms of product quality (chemical compositions and particle size) and delivery time. Additionally, the performance must have occurred during the last three (3) years.

The Past Performance shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Each proposal will be evaluated to the extent which the Offeror has demonstrated an ability and willingness to perform: 1) A quality product (i.e. the conformance to the chemical composition standards and particle size) and 2) Timeliness of the contract with regard to delivery materials. If either product quality or delivery time is evaluated as “unacceptable,” the Past Performance shall be considered as “unacceptable.”

In the case of an Offeror without a relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), Past Performance Evaluation). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” Should the Government discover adverse past performance information to which the Offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond, the CO will conduct communications if deemed appropriate.

Past Performance Questionnaire, evaluations and all other Recent and Relevant Past Performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, past performance documents, and information obtained for any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance.

Experience providing similar product/services under a similar contract in the last three (3) years.

At a minimum, the documentation must include the contract number, award date, delivery date(s), and quantity.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/ subsidiary/ affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

Price proposal If a proposal has been determined acceptable under each of the non-price factors listed above, the Government will then evaluate the proposal for the lowest price. The proposed total price between offers that are determined to be technically acceptable will be the determining factor in the selection for award. The Government will assess the Offeror’s cost/price to determine if it is reasonable for the work to be performed.

Basis of Evaluation

The submission package will be evaluated for completeness and for demonstration of compliance to the requirements detailed in the SOW.

Evaluations and all other Recent and Relevant Past Performance information reviewed by the Government, including past performance documents, and information obtained for any other source, shall reflect a trend of satisfactory performance.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The offer will be evaluated for price, such that it is reasonable and competitive, and product specification.

In the Government’s evaluation of offers, Technical Approach, in accordance with the SOW, will be essential, because it determines if the material received can or cannot be used by future applications. The Offeror’s Past Performance record with relevance to the task will be important, because it predicts the material’s potential quality and delivery time before delivery.

If the both non-price factors are acceptable, price gives the determining factor for the contract award.