Attachment 6 - Section M 112125 final.docx

NdFeB MAGNET BLOCK

SECTION M SP8000-25-R-0022

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for award The award shall be made to the responsible firm(s), whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government for production capability, technical approach, past performance, and price considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality product considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, at fair and reasonable prices. Award will be made on the basis of a best value trade-off source selection process. Offerors are advised that a proposal which meets the Government’s objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially equal for non-price factors, price will become the major consideration in selecting the best value. The government intends to award 3 initial IDIQ contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to domestic vendor(s) that are capable of producing NdFeB Magnet Block in the United States or the outlying areas of the United States. The Government also reserves the right to award more or less than 3 IDIQs or make no award. The Guaranteed Minimum is $3,000,000 and contract maximum / ceiling is $200,000,000. Dependent on the quality of proposals, the government may allocate the $3 million in guaranteed minimum more or less to a particular vendor. Should any IDIQ awardee fail to deliver compliant material, the awardee will forfeit their right to the Guaranteed Minimum under their IDIQ contract. Each subsequent delivery order (DO) may be competed using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), Best Value Trade-Off, or may be directly awarded in the interest of Industrial Mobilization. However, the government reserves the right to make a single award or no award if it is in the best interest of the government.

A proposal must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the Offeror will provide material in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) and satisfy all requirements listed in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals.

Evaluation Method The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the Offeror’s capability as indicated in their proposal. The best value may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. An offer must be evaluated acceptable or better in all evaluation factors for the Offeror to be eligible for award.

OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors outlined in Section 2.1 below. The non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3), when combined, carry significantly greater weight than Factor 4 (price). However, as the non-price factor ratings across proposals become more similar, the evaluated price increases in importance. Consequently, if Offerors are deemed substantially equal in terms of non-price factors, price will become the primary determinant of the award. The Government reserves the right to select a lower-cost Offeror when proposals are essentially equivalent in non-price capabilities or when the specific strengths or benefits of a technically superior proposal do not justify any associated cost or price premium. In essence, the Government will conduct tradeoffs between cost and technical capability to determine the award.

The Government will evaluate proposals in the order of the factors set forth below. Proposals will first be evaluated under Factor 1, Production Capability. A rating of unacceptable under Factor 1 will render the proposal ineligible for award. However, if discussions are conducted, offerors rated unacceptable at this stage may be included in the competitive range and given the opportunity to revise their proposal. Following final proposal revisions, any proposal that remains unacceptable under Factor 1 will not be considered further. A rating of unacceptable under Factor 2 will render the proposal ineligible for award. If discussions are conducted, offerors may be provided the opportunity to revise their proposals with respect to Factor 2. Following final proposal revisions, any proposal that remains unacceptable under Factor 2 will not be considered further, and Factors 3 and 4 will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, request proposal revisions, and make award without discussions.

Award without Discussion:

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if determined necessary. Proposals should contain the firm’s best terms within the proposed technical approach and should address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(c)).

No Award:

The Government reserves the right to not make an award based on this solicitation if such award is determined contrary to the best interest of the Government.

Multiple Awards

The Government anticipates the award of an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to multiple Offerors whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and is considered to represent the best value to the Government.

PROPOSAL AND evaluation factors AND SUBFACTORS Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Production Capability

· Subfactor 1.1: Production Capacity to the Required Specification

· Subfactor 1.2: Speed to Delivery

Factor 2: Technical Approach

· Subfactor 2.1: Material Description

· Subfactor 2.2: Collaboration Efforts

· Subfactor 2.3: Sampling

· Subfactor 2.4: Testing

· Subfactor 2.5: Certificates of Analysis

· Subfactor 2.6: Packaging

· Subfactor 2.7: Labeling

The government will evaluate the specifications/standards that the offeror can domestically produce, and compliance with section 4 of the Statement of Work (SOW)

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Price Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The above evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Under Factor 1, the Subfactors are of equal importance and are used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1. Under Factor 2, the Subfactors are of equal importance and are used to develop the overall rating for Factor 2. All non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4, price. As the non-price factor ratings become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems if appropriate.

Note: If a proposal receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-price Factors or Subfactors, the entire proposal will be determined "Unacceptable" and will be ineligible for award.

The awardee will be the Offeror who presents the best value approach to the Government’s requirement. If needed the Government may enter discussions with all Offeror(s) to determine if an Offeror fully understands the requirement.

Description of Evaluation factors AND SUBFACTORS The Offeror shall use the requirements outlined in the SOW to respond to Factor 1 (including subfactors).

Factor 1: Production Capability:

The Production Capability factor assesses the Offeror’s ability to meet the capacity/delivery requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and Section L, Section 3.1. The evaluation will focus on the completeness, feasibility, and quality of the Offeror’s proposed solutions, supported by documented evidence as required. Production Capability consists of multiple subfactors, each evaluated individually. Subfactors are of equal importance.

The Government will assign a combined risk/rating. The combined risk/rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. A risk/rating will be given to the subfactors, and the overall Technical Approach based on the following criteria:

Adjectival Rating for Production Capability and Subfactors

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Subfactor 1.1: Production Capacity The government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to domestically produce to the desired specifications for the year 1 table quantity (listed in section L) for each grade of magnet. The offeror must show the ability to meet out-year requirements as identified in the solicitation.

Subfactor 1.2: Speed to Delivery The government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to deliver the offeror’s proposed capacity to be filled in under subfactor 1.1.

Factor 2: Technical Approach:

The Technical Approach factor assesses the Offeror’s ability to meet the technical requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and Section L, Section 3.2. The evaluation will focus on the completeness, feasibility, and quality of the Offeror’s proposed solutions, supported by documented evidence as required. The Technical Approach consists of multiple subfactors, each evaluated individually. Subfactors are of equal importance.

The Government will assign a combined risk/rating. The combined risk/rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. A risk/rating will be given to the subfactors, and the overall Technical Approach based on the following criteria:

Adjectival Rating for Technical Approach and Subfactors

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Subfactor 2.1: Material Description The government will evaluate the specifications/standards that the offeror can domestically produce, and compliance with section 4 of the Statement of Work (SOW).

The magnet block must adhere to the material property specifications described in the solicitation. The magnet blocks must contain a combination of the following elements: Iron (Fe), Boron (B), Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr) and Dysprosium (Dy).

Material must be non-radioactive, non-licensable per Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. Individual values of Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) must be reported. The material cannot have more than 0.05 percent combined Thorium and Uranium by weight.

Subfactor 2.2: Collaboration Efforts The government will evaluate the proposal for a list of DoD Programs of Record that the Offeror is currently working with related to the production / supply of magnet block.

Subfactor 2.3: Sampling The government will evaluate the proposal for detailed sampling information as outlined in section 5 of the SOW, with particular focus on contents of the sampling plan Subfactor 2.4: Testing The government will evaluate the proposal for detailed sampling information as outlined in section 6 of the SOW, with particular focus on contents of the testing plan Subfactor 2.5: Certificates of Analysis The government will evaluate a sample of the Offeror’s Certificate of Analysis (COA) (see Section 7 of the SOW) from past deliveries of the solicited material or make an affirmative statement that the Offeror has never sold the proposed magnet block.

Subfactor 2.6: Packaging The government will evaluate the proposal for detailed packaging information as outlined in section 8 of the SOW, with particular focus on type of packaging, coating information, waterproofing and palletization will be used. Evaluations will also include a sample Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the solicited material in accordance with SOW Section 14.4.

Subfactor 2.7: Labeling The government will evaluate the proposal for detailed labelling information as outlined in Section 9 of the SOW.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The evaluation of an Offeror’s Past Performance will be based on both the overall confidence assessment derived from an evaluation of an Offeror’s submitted previous contracts, and an examination of other information obtained from Government and other systems including but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR). The confidence assessment is created by evaluating the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of the submitted contracts. By considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, combined with how well the Offeror performed on the contracts, will demonstrate the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements. In rating past performance, the following will be considered:

Recency of Prior Contracts Recency is an evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is expressed as a time during which past performance reference is considered relevant. Past Performance that is presently being performed or was completed in the last four (4) years prior to the solicitation issue date is considered recent, but the offeror can provide less recent references that were completed up to ten (10) years prior to the solicitation issue date. Experience that is less recent will not be rated as highly as recent experience.

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Relevancy of Prior Contracts Relevancy is an evaluation of how relevant an accomplished effort is to the effort to be acquired. The Government will evaluate relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s provided contract history that will give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success, and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment, than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that most of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Previous Performance Quality is an evaluation of the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The determination of how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts will be decided by examining such indicators as: the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal. This may include the Government independently verifying provided information with an Offeror’s prior customers, or through past performance databases including, but not limited to, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Additionally, the Government may use information from publicly available sources including, but not limited to, internet searches, and financial reports. If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify any discrepant information.

Other Information Sources The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, State, and Local Government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact as well as the right to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

Performance Confidence Assessment An Offeror’s overall Past Performance rating will be derived from the Performance Confidence Assessment. In this assessment the Government will review and assess the results of the recency, relevancy, and quality evaluations in addition to examining the information listed in 3.2.4 to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Each Offeror will be assigned one rating from the table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Neutral Rating

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. A prime or significant subcontractor that does not provide any contract reference information will receive a neutral rating for past performance. Furthermore, if Offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide contract reference information that is not relevant and recent as defined in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

Factor 4: Price

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor Index. Offerors shall complete the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) pricing in Section B of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposal for price reasonableness using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Price Reasonableness Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. If price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional pricing information will be requested by the Government. Price evaluation will be based on the total price offered for all Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs). If necessary, an informal breakdown will be required at the CLIN level to include by not limited to; material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items.

Controlled Unclassified Information – Source Selection Sensitive See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Controlled Unclassified Information – Source Selection Sensitive See FAR 2.101 and 3.104