Attachment_B-Evaluation_Criteria--DyFe.pdf

Attachment B Evaluation Criteria Ferro-dysprosium

Evaluation Criteria Ferro-dysprosium

The Government intends to award a fixed price for the procurement Ferro-dysprosium (DyFe).

The Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts if it proves to be in the best interest of the Government.

In order for a proposal to be evaluated, a prospective contractor must first be determined responsible and will be assessed in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General Standards.

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 (IAW) 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 and Past Performance.) The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions.

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.304(d), the following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1) Evaluation Procedures

a. Evaluation factors for Award of the Ferro-dysprosium (DyFe):

i. Factor 1: Technical Approach - Technical acceptability for conformance with the Statement of Work.

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance - Recent and Relevant Past Performance within the last 3 Years.

iii. Factor 3: Price – In accordance with FAR 13.106-3

b. Factors 1 and Factor 2 shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis:

i. 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. The proposal will also be considered if it does not include the required submittals.

ii. An “Unacceptable” rating on Factor 1 (Technical Acceptability) shall render the proposal ineligible for award, or if discussions are held, a proposal found to be “unacceptable for award” (as defined above) will be excluded. Communications may be held with the Contractor where past performance information is a factor preventing their proposal from being acceptable.

c. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Technical Acceptability:

i. The offeror must describe the ability to provide 500 kilograms of Ferro-dysprosium in accordance with the material requirements of the SOW.

ii. The offeror must identify the ability to package, label, transport and deliver the material in accordance with the SOW.

iii. The offeror must provide the following SUBMITTALS WITH PROPOSAL:

1) Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the solicited material

2) Example of COA for past delivery for the solicited materials

3) Testing and Methodology for the tests performed on the CoA

4) Expected lot size / number of lots /frequency of deliveries

5) Proof of small business status

ci. Recent and Relevant Past Performance

i. 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 acceptable performance.

ii. 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. The references may be either government or commercial entities.

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.

d. Basis of Evaluation of Price

i. Price reasonableness will be determined by in accordance with FAR Part 13.106-3. Price will also be evaluated for completeness in that it: (1) reflects a thorough understanding of the SOW; (2) is submitted in accordance with the contract line item number (CLIN) and (3) provides a total project price on a firm-fixed basis.