Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

High Purity Yttrium Oxide Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to award a contract based on a comparative evaluation of the lowest offered price for High Purity Yttrium Oxide after consideration of other non-priced factors in accordance with FAR 13.106-2. Additionally, to be eligible for an award, an offeror must also be determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1–General Standards.

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

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated an acceptable Technical Capability. To be determined acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate the necessary expertise, experience and facility capability to successfully meet all solicitation requirements. The Contractor must be able to produce high purity yttrium oxide at higher than 99.9995% purity and meet the impurity requirements, defined by the DLA standards referenced in the Statement of Work (SOW, Section 4.1.). The material grade must meet its corresponding chemical composition standards defined by Table 1 in the Statement of Work Section 4.1.1. The material shall be in the form of powder, with a size of D50 3 - 15 µm, as defined in SOW Section 4.1.2.

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 demonstrate this capability through the submission of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) and Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA).

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

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance using information provided in the proposal and information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers, subcontractors, the Government-wide Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS), or any other reasonable basis. 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 quality of the products ((i.e. the conformance to the chemical composition standards and particle size) and timeliness of material delivery under a similar contract as outlined in the solicitation requirements.

If either product quality or delivery time is evaluated as “unacceptable”, the Past Performance shall be considered as “unacceptable.”

The performance relevancy ratings are Relevant and Not Relevant. The Government will only consider relevant past performance data. 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, performance must have occurred during the last three (3) years.

In the case of an Offeror without a relevant and recent 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. 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 an Offeror did not have a prior opportunity to respond, the Contracting Officer may conduct communications if deemed appropriate.

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

Factor 3: Price

If a proposal has been determined acceptable under each of the non-price factors listed above, the Government will select the lowest total price, if it is determined to be reasonable for the material to be supplied, as the determining factor in the selection of the Offeror for the award of the contract.