Attachment_B_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Tantalum_FINAL_Rev2.pdf

Attachment B – Revised Amendment 2

Evaluation Criteria Tantalum Pentoxide (Ta2O5)

The Government intends to award a fixed price (FP) with economic price adjustment contract 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 Acceptability - Technical Acceptability for conformance with the Statement of Work and its attachments.

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance - Recent and Relevant Past Performance within the last 3 Years (at least 3 references).

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 to ALL the requirements of the Statement of Work. The proposal will also NOT be considered if it does not include all required submittals.

Tantalum SP8000-19-R-0004, Revised Attachment B, Amendment 2 Evaluation Criteria

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 determined acceptable.

c. Factor 1: Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Technical Acceptability:

i. The offeror must describe the ability to provide 22,046 pounds of contained tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) in each period (base and options) in accordance with the specifications in the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror must also describe the ability to provide the option quantities of not-to-exceed 19,400 pounds of tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) in each period in accordance with the Statement of Work.

ii. The offeror must identify the ability to package, label, transport, deliver, and provide sampling and testing of 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 it will be unacceptable if personal protective equipment (PPE) is required beyond coveralls, leather gloves, eye protection, steel-toed boots, a dosimeter, and half-face air purifying respirators using filters that are approved for use in atmospheres containing radionuclides by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 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:

• Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the proposed material - (Ref Attachment G –

Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• 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) (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg). NOTE: Your COA will be evaluated for your technical ability to provide the specified Ta2O5 in this solicitation. It is understood that you may not have supplied material meeting these exact specifications previously.

This COA will not be used to evaluate your past performance.

Offerors shall state in their proposal whether they have provided the specific solicited material in the past.

• Submit Sampling Plan (Ref 6.3.1-6.3.3 of the SOW) (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Sampler (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Submit Testing plan and qualifications of the Third party company (Ref

6.3.1-6.3.3 of the SOW) (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Testing Laboratory (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Materials Specification (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Material Packaging (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Delivery Schedule (Ref Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Economic Price Adjustment (Ref. Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

• Submit Proof of Conflict Free Status (Ref SOW 6.1.5).

• Submit Expected number of lots of material and the expected lot size (Ref SOW 6.1.6).

• Submit Chemical testing from previous lots showing all components over 5 wt% (weight percent) (Ref. Attachment G – Revised, Offeror Submittal Pkg)

ci. Recent and Relevant Past Performance – Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. To be considered awardable, offerors must have an Acceptable Past Performance Rating.

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. Offerors are instructed to submit up to three

(3) Past Performance Questionnaires that may include performance which is still in progress; however, it should have a minimum of one (1) year of performance history and be no more than three (3) years old from the closing date of the solicitation.

iii.

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.

iv. 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

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 information shall be submitted on Attachment E – Revised, Tantalum CLIN Structure. Price will be evaluated in two parts:

• The offeror’s price per pound of tantalum pentoxide, adjusted if necessary for radioactive material (see Attachment E – Revised, Tantalum CLIN Structure for detailed information).

• The price of the sampling/testing cost per sample.

iii. The Government will add together 1) each offeror’s proposed prices per pound for material (Ta2O5) for all of the base and option periods and 2) each offeror’s per sample price for all of the base and option periods into one overall evaluated price. The Government will then compare all offerors’ overall evaluated prices to determine the lowest overall price.