Attachment_B_-Evaluation_Criteria_Tantalum.pdf

Attachment B Evaluation Criteria

Tantalum Ores and Concentrates

The Government intends to award a fixed price with economic price adjustment for the procurement of tantalum (Ta) concentrate. The basis for the Ta will be tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5). The Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts if it proves to be in the best interest of the Government.

The proposal will 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 Tantalum Pentoxide (Ta2O5):

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

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

i. A proposal will be considered acceptable if it conforms to the requirements of the

Statement of Work. A proposal will be considered unacceptable if it does NOT conform with ALL requirements of the Statement of Work.

SP8000-18-R-0010 Page 1 of 3

Tantalum Evaluation Criteria

SP8000-18-R-0010

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 will 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 10,000 kilograms, contained weight, of Tantalum Ores and Concentrates (Ta2O5) in each period (base and options) in accordance with the specifications in the Statement of Work (SOW).

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

iii. The Proposal will be evaluated with respect to its toxicity, hazardous characteristics, and environmental liability. The hazard statement of the safety data sheet will be reviewed and if additional personal protective equipment will be required to handle, sample or inspect the material as compared to an expected ore or concentrate the proposal will be determined unacceptable. The proposal will also be determined unacceptable if the hazard statement of the safety data sheet and/or the chemical composition indicates the material will cause any accelerated decay of the packaging increasing the likelihood of contamination.

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

1. Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the solicited materials

2. Submit Proof of Conflict Free Status.

3. Submit Third Party sampling, testing plan and qualifications of the

Third party company. (Ref 6.3.1-6.3.3 of the SOW)

4. Delivery Schedule

5. Submit Expected number of lots of material.

6. Submit Example Certificate of Analysis (COA) for past delivery for the solicited material within the last 3 years. (Ref 6.2.1-6.2.1.4 of the

SOW)

7. Submit Chemical testing from previous lots showing all components over 5%.

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

Tantalum Evaluation Criteria

SP8000-18-R-0010

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.

iii. Past Performance Rating with Definitions Rating Definition Notes

Acceptable

(A)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/User’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element assessed is accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor is highly effective.

The Contractor 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 Contractor has demonstrated the ability and willingness to produce a quality product (i.e. the conformance to the chemical composition standards and particle size).

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.”

Unacceptable

(U)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or are ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occur that the contractor has trouble overcoming and which impacts the Government/User. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Not Applicable

(N/A)

No relevant past performance information available

In the case of a Contractor 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 Contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance

e. Basis of Evaluation of Price

i. Award will be made to the contractor whose proposal represents lowest price technically acceptable as defined in FAR 15, Subpart 15.101-2.

ii. Price will be evaluated in two parts:

• The offeror’s price per kilogram of tantalum pentoxide.

• The price of the sampling/testing cost per sample

iii. The Government will add together 1) each offeror’s proposed prices for all of the base and option periods and 2) each offeror’s per sample price for all of the base period and option periods into one overall evaluated price. The Government will then compare all offerors’ overall evaluated prices to determine the lowest price.