SP8000-16-R-0010_Attachment_D-Evaluation_Criteria_for_Turbine_Engine_Component_Recycling.pdf

ATTACHMENT D to the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Turbine Engine Component Recycling

SP8000-16-R-0010

FAR 52.212-2—EVALUATION FACTORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation (has the lowest unit price per pound for processing Government furnished turbine engine components and part for recycling and reclamation services; using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 12, FAR 15.101-2, and FAR 15.305. The Government intends to award a firm fixed-price contract, but reserves the right to award multiple contracts 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 Part 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 past performance rating will then have the proposal evaluated for the lowest price. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award all offers that do not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. For example, prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; or if clarifications are needed. Reverse Auctions will be considered with this requirement.

The Government will use the following factors to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Recent and Relevant Past Performance (FAR 15.304) Factor 3: Price (FAR 15.101-2)

Factors 1 and 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. “Unknown” past performance shall be considered “acceptable”. Factor 3 shall be evaluated on the overall lowest offered price (if it is determined to be reasonable for the required reclamation services).

ATTACHMENT D: EVALUATION CRITERIA

Acceptable/Unacceptable

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 precludes 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) Sows 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) 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 Approach 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) and 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; but has the prerogative to hold discussions if necessary. 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 (KO) to be in the competitive range may 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/revision to their original proposal (if more than one round of discussions are held). At the conclusion of final discussions, the Government can request each Offeror in the competitive range to submit their 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.”

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Factor I: Technical Capability

The technical proposal should be written so that Government’s technical personnel can make a thorough evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of this solicitation. To this end, the technical proposal shall be specific, detailed and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough understanding of the technical requirements contained in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal shall be page numbered for ease of reference and review, contain a cover page with any necessary signatures and contain a table of contents. The proposal shall provide any necessary background information and a summary of the proposal should the Offeror believe it will assist the Government in understanding the information for accurate evaluation purposes.

The Technical volume should demonstrate the necessary expertise, experience and facility capability to successfully meet all solicitation requirements. It shall also prove the ability to perform Demilitarization (DEMIL) and recycling of Vacuum Induction Melt (VIM) quality scrap materials, precious metal bearing offtake, and Non-VIM Quality Scrap, as defined by Section A.2.1 in the PWS.

The technical proposal shall be specific, detailed and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough understanding of the technical requirements contained in the PWS.

Statements contained in the proposals such as “The Offeror understands”, “will comply with the performance work statement”, standard procedures will be employed”, “well known techniques will be used”, and general paraphrasing of the PWS are considered inadequate.

The technical proposal must provide details concerning what the contractor will do and how it will be done. This includes a full explanation of the techniques, disciplines, and procedures proposed to be followed. The Government understands that this information can be proprietary in nature and will solely be used in the evaluation for this contract award.

The technical proposal shall not contain any reference to price; however, information concerning labor allocation and categories, labor hours, consultants, travel, materials, equipment, and other information of interest to technical reviewers shall be contained in the technical proposal in sufficient detail so that the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be adequately evaluated.

Factor 2: Recent and Relevant Past Performance (FAR 15.304)

The Offeror shall submit the information for this factor separately from the rest of the evaluation criteria factors for this solicitation. The Offeror shall submit an ATTACHMENT B—PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION separately for each reference. The Offeror shall describe their background, knowledge and experience related to the services described in the PWS; this information will be used in determining the level of confidence the Government has for successful performance based on the Offeror’s actions under previously awarded and relevant contracts. The Government recommends the Offeror submit at least three (3) recent (no earlier than September 2013 to current) and relevant (according to complexity contained in the PWS) contracts or references.

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s past performance IAW FAR 15.305 for any of the information contained in the proposal. The Government also reserves the right to use any other methods 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 etc. for the evaluation of this factor.

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 services under a similar contract as outlined in the solicitation requirements. The Government shall only consider relevant past performance data. Documentation of recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated for satisfactory performance considering a pattern of meeting material specifications and a pattern of timely delivery. The performance ratings are Acceptable or Unacceptable.

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 may 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 the Offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond, the Contracting Officer will conduct communications if deemed appropriate.

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

Each proposal will be evaluated to the extent which the Offeror has demonstrated an ability and willingness to perform:

1) A quality product or service (i.e. the conformance to the contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship);

2) Timeliness of the contract with regard to completion of contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements (e.g., effort that contributes to or affects the schedule variance);

3) Acceptable cost control with regard to the Offeror’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost;

4) Good business relationships with regard to the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification and resolution, Offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts; and

5) Management of personnel with regard to demonstration of a commitment to the management of personnel with regard to the Offeror’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing when necessary, personnel.

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 (no earlier than September 2013). Based on this evaluation, the Factor will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable

Factor 3: Price (FAR 15.101-2)

If a proposal has been determined acceptable under each of the non-price factors listed above, the Government evaluate each Offeror’s unit prices to determine the overall lowest offered price (if it is determined to be reasonable for the required reclamation services). Offerors are required to provide a separate detailed breakouts of the pricing methodology used to develop their unit prices to include a description of labor hours, labor mix, other direct cost, overhead and profit, etc.

BASIS OF EVALUATION

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

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 Capability, in accordance with (IAW) the PWS, will be essential, because it decides if the material received can or cannot be used in future applications. The Offeror’s Past Performance record with relevance to the requirements/tasks will be important, because it predicts the material’s potential quality and delivery time etc. before delivery. The material will be fully inspected before its acceptance and returned if the requirements are not met. If the two non-price factors are acceptable, price gives the determining factor for the contract award.