ATTACHMENT B - Evaluation Criteria_EMM_Rev1.pdf

SP8000-22-R-0002

Attachment B

Revision 1, June 10, 2022 Evaluation Criteria

Electrolytic Manganese Metal

The Government intends to award a single fixed price (FP) contract for the procurement of Electrolytic Manganese Metal. 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

Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 4 shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

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

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability:

(1) In a document named “Technical Narrative” the offeror must describe their ability to provide 5,000 metric tons (MT) of Electrolytic Manganese Metal (EMM) flakes with manganese (Mn) purity of at least 99.7% by weight in accordance with the specifications in the Statement of Work. The offeror must identify in a detailed narrative the ability to meet the requirements for the following:

a. Material: Please explain in a detailed narrative the ability to meet the material specifications listed in the SOW Section 5.1 in the amount of 5,000 MT at no more than 300 MT per month.

b. Material Packaging:

1. Please explain in a detailed narrative the ability to provide material packaged in new UN 1A2 rated steel drums in accordance with SOW Section 5.3.

2. Please explain in a detailed narrative the ability to provide material packaged in new UN1A2 drums in accordance with SOW Section 5.3.

c. Labeling: Please explain in a detailed narrative the ability to provide labeling as defined in SOW Section 5.4.

d. Delivery and Material Transportation: Please explain in a detailed narrative the ability to deliver the material to the Scotia, New York Government storage facility in accordance with SOW Section 5.5.

(2) The offeror must provide the following SUBMITTALS WITH PROPOSAL:

a. Technical Narrative with detailed explanations listed in Section 1 above.

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

c. Example of COA for past delivery, if applicable, for the solicited materials. See

SOW Section 5.2.6 for required information.

d. Testing and methodology for the tests performed on the COA.

e. Expected lot size, number of lots, and frequency of deliveries

f. Proposed Delivery schedule (no more than 300 MT a month).

Factor 2: 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.

(1) Past Performance Questionnaires. Offerors are instructed to submit up to three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires that may include the performance 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. 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.

(2) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submitted past performance, to include the questionnaires, for recency and relevancy based on how well the contractor performed on projects of similar scope, dollar value, and complexity.

(3) Additionally, 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.

(4) 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). 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”.

Factor 3: Price

If the proposal has been determined technically acceptable, the Government will evaluate offerors’ price proposals in the following manner. The offeror shall provide a price for 5,000 MT of Electrolytic Manganese Metal (EMM) flakes with a minimum manganese (Mn) content of 99.00% by mass (Mn content = 100 x (mass of contained Mn ÷ mass of total substances). This includes the price associated with the material packaged in new UN 1A2 rated steel drums with a rated capacity of 30 or 55 gallons or metric equivalent capacity. (CLIN 0001) Contract award will be made to the responsible offeror with the lowest overall evaluated price.

Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting

The Government will use Part IV – Socioeconomic proposal and other information submitted by Offerors to evaluate their proposal’s support of socioeconomic programs and small business concerns. The Offeror shall demonstrate their understanding of DLA’s Small Business Goals and extent of participation of, and their commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities to, subcontracting with small, small disadvantaged, veteran owned small, disabled veteran-owned small, HUBZone, women owned small businesses, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If no subcontracting opportunities exist, then offers must provide sufficient detail justifying on why there are no subcontracting opportunities for the requirement.

ACCEPTABLE:

The contractor indicates an understanding of DLA socioeconomic goals and the commitment to subcontracting in the performance of this service contract with the groups of businesses referenced above. If no opportunity exists, then Offeror has provided sufficient justification on why no subcontracting opportunities exist.

UNACCEPTABLE:

The contractor does not indicate an understanding of DLA socioeconomic goals and the commitment to subcontracting in the performance of this service contract with the groups of businesses referenced above and has provided no justification on why there are no subcontracting opportunities for the requirement.

NOTE: The offeror’s proposals for socioeconomic support will be made a part of any resulting contract for use in determining how well the Contractor has adhered to its socioeconomic plan.

This plan will be monitored by the DLA DCSO’s Small Business Office a means of assisting the Contracting Officer in determining how well the Contractor has in fact performed.