Ebuy2_Integration_Questions_Eval_ATTACH_10.xls
XLS spreadsheet 52 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Retread Tires
- Solicitation number
- 3D-14-A-0098
- Issued by
-
United States Postal Service
About this file
Attachment 10 - eBuy2 Integration Evaluation Questions
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q A2_trucktires.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Q A2_A.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3D-14-A-0098_Amendment_000001.pdf | ||
| Q A1.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT_3.pdf | ||
| EDIImplementationGuide-ATTACH_7.doc | DOC document | |
| ATTACHMENT_2.pdf | ||
| Pricing_Matrix_ATTACH_4.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT_9.pdf | ||
| 3D-14-A-0098SOL.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT_8.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT_5.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT_1.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT_6.pdf |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| Technical Evaluation Instructions |
| For Level 1 of the technical evaluation, the team will evaluate only the 12 identified requirements on tabs F2, F3, F4 and F6 (the "Level 1 Pass/Fail" column cells have a peach color background). Disregard the remaining blacked out cells for Level 1 of the evaluation, as these requirements do not yet require review. Each requirement will then be evaluated as either PASS or FAIL, indicating whether or not the Supplier's response meets the USPS requirement. The team will then come to a consensus "PASS" or "FAIL" for each requirement, for each Supplier. Then, where indicated, the team will populate the Factor Summary tab accordingly for each Supplier. Only Suppliers that receive an overall evaluation of "PASS" for these 12 technical requirements will move on to Level 2 of the technical evaluation - the scoring portion. |
For Level 2 of this evaluation, on each factor tab of the spreadsheet, there are separate columns for each of the team members to enter their individual scores into the spreadsheet. The team must then come to an agreement for each "Team Consensus" score, as it is *not* and average of the team members's individual scores. Once all of the "Team Consensus" scores are populated, the data will automatically be calculated, weighted and populated on the Factor Summary tab of the spreadsheet.
*All cells with a background color of yellow or peach within this spreadsheet (either evaluation scores, notes or comments) should be populated by the evaluation team.
**Other than entering the Supplier's name and "PASS" or "FAIL" scores for Level 1 of the Evaluation, the Factor Summary tab requires NO manual data entries - it is entirely auto-populated and calculated.
Instructions for Evaluators:
1. Define Supplier A, Supplier B, Supplier C, etc, and be sure to remain consistent throughout all tabs of the evaluation.
2. Level 1 - Review and rate the 12 identified requirements on tabs F2, F3, F4 and F6 as either "PASS" or "FAIL", and populate the appropriate cells (background color is peach) of the individual factor tab and the Factory Summary tab for each Supplier.
3. Level 2 - Each evaluator must fill out the score pertaining to this criteria (from 0 to 4; 0 being the lowest, 4 being the highest - see below) for each requirement listed. The team will discuss each requirement and then determine the "Team Consensus" score for each requirement, and for each Supplier.
4. Enter supporting comments pertaining to the assigned score for each team member. Evaluators should provide as much documentation as possible to justify their assigned ranking including BOTH the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES pertaining to each criteria.
5. Once the evaluation is completed, examine computed final scores at the bottom of the Factor Summary tab to determine the final technical evaluation ranking.
| Score | Classification | Description |
| 0 | Unsatisfactory | The proposal as submitted clearly does not meet the requirements set forth in the subject solicitation. Major weaknesses, deficiencies, and or risks are found which indicate a comprehensive effort, comparable in effect to a thorough rewriting of the application, would be necessary before USPS requirements are met. |
| 1 | Marginal | Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and proposes an approach that marginally meets or in some instances falls below minimum requirements. The weaknesses, though possibly correctable, outweigh the strengths. There is a higher degree of risk associated with the proposal than should be expected. |
| 2 | Satisfactory | The proposal as submitted meets the overall requirements of the subject solicitation. There are no major indications of exceptional features that could prove to be beneficial, or conversely, major weaknesses, risks, or deficiencies that diminish the general quality. Ratings and scores within the satisfactory range reflect a proposal that no more than adequately meets the Postal Service’s requirements. |
| 3 | Good | High quality in most respects and meets or exceeds minimum requirements in a way beneficial to the USPS. The proposal meets overall requirements with no major weaknesses, deficiencies or risks noted. Those weaknesses or risks which are found are considered sufficient to preclude evaluating the proposal as excellent; however, they do not collectively suffice to jeopardize the otherwise overall superior performance as proposed. Ratings and scores within the good range should reflect a comparison of the number and extent of such weaknesses or risks against the overall superiority of the application. |
| 4 | Excellent | The proposal exceeds all requirements. The proposal is fully and completely responsive. Corporate and or personnel information submitted indicates extensive experience in similar subject matter and scope to the requirements described in the subject solicitation. Assigned ratings and scores within the excellent range indicate that in terms of the specific criteria, the proposal contains no major weaknesses, deficiencies, or risks, or that whatever minor faults are found are considered to be of such small consequence that their impact on the overall excellence of the proposals are negligible. |
Requirements
| Parameter | Supplier Response | Score | Evaluator Notes | |
| 1 | Supplier can integrate the designated catalog items under contract within 90 days of contract execution. Supplier will confirm YES or No. If NO, Supplier must describe the exceptions and/or modifications to this language. | |||
| 2 | USPS indicates two options for data exchanges with suppliers: Flat files over FTP and X12 EDI documents of FTP. Please indicate Supplier's ability to offer either or both of these options. | |||
| 3 | USPS indicates the Dataset and Communication Protocol. Is your company able to comply with the diagram? Supplier will confirm YES or No. If NO, Supplier must describe the exceptions and/or modifications to this language. | |||
| 4 | USPS lists the supported Data Formats: ANSI (ASC) x12 and Flat File. Please indicate the ability to comply with each format. | |||
| 5 | Communication Protocols: Please describe how you support FTP protocol. | |||
| 6 | Data Encryption: USPS eBuy 2 Purchasing System utilizes GnuPG (Gnu Privacy Guard) encryption software. Please discuss briefly how you utilize the encryption software as is relevant to this RFP. What, if any, contingencies are involved? Please provide any relevant information. | |||
| 7 | File Naming Conventions: Please indicate if Supplier can fully comply. Supplier will confirm YES or No. If NO, please explain. | |||
| 8 | EDI Testing Process: EDI testing will be performed in two different test environment, SIT (System Integration Test) and CAT (Customer Acceptance Test). Will Supplier have test environment to support the EDI testing? Supplier will confirm YES or No. If NO, please explain. | |||
| 9 | EDI Testing Process: Process for SIT and CAT. Supplier will confirm YES or NO if it can fully comply with this process as described. If NO, please explain. | |||
| 10 | Supplier On Boarding Checklist: If Supplier takes exception to any Task ID, please indicate which ones and the reason. | |||
| 11 | Catalog Hierarchy Process: eBuy2 utilizes the UNSPSC v10.4.X (United Nations Standard Products and Services Code) codes for catalog hierarchy. Please discuss how you implement and use this catalog hierarchy process as is relevant to this RFP and USPS. | |||
| 12 | Data Security: Please indicate YES or NO if your company uses a Public Key Certification. | |||
| 13 | Data Security: Please indicate the Encryption Software that your company uses. What is the version #? | |||
| 14 | Transaction Sets and Versions: Please indicate a YES or NO to each transaction set. Please indicate if you are currently using these transactions. 
(*Note: Cut and paste these into your response and indicate YES or NO)

810/4010 : YES NO (check one)
855/4010 : YES NO (check one)
856/4010 : YES NO (check one)
857/4010 : YES NO (check one)
870/4010 : YES NO (check one)
824/4010 : YES NO (check one)
850/4010 : YES NO (check one)
997/4010 : YES NO (check one) | |||
| 15 | Supplier must have to ability to reject orders if the price does not match the catalog price available in their system. Please indicate YES or NO. | |||
| 16 | Supplier must be able to return an electronic document to let the procurement system know that an order has been cancelled. Please indicate YES or NO if Supplier has this capability. Please explain any contingencies to meet requirement. | |||
| 17 | EDI Software: Please indicate the EDI software that your company is currently using. | |||
| 18 | EDI Software: Are you a PC, UNIX, AS/400, or Mainframe platform? Please indicate YES or NO. Please indicate platform and version used. If a different platform is used, please indicate the platform and version. | |||
| 19 | Please describe any previous integration to a customer's eprocurement catalog and cite any examples similar to USPS eBuy2 application. Indicate relevant information, such as lead times, resources, and cost. (*Note, the system allows 1 page of text approximately. You may attach up to 2 additional pages to this questionnaire discussing relevant experience). | |||
| 20 | Please describe any technical issues or prerequisites that USPS needs to address before the start date of the project. (*Note: This question only allows approximately 1 page of text) | |||
| 21 | Does your system allow for the creation of blind line items (CLINs) that can be added to the catalog but not ordered by the general user community at USPS? Can you keep these items separate between public and blind? | |||
| 22 | Supplier's solution can allow for either an end to end eCommerce order processing (from start to checkout to fulfillment straight from the catalog) or processing of separate orders via the USPS contract or delivery order. Supplier will confirm Yes or No. Supplier will describe its approach to meet this requirement. | |||
| 23 | Does your solution require any manual data input either by your staff or USPS staff? What is the turnaround time or impact to either implementation or to order entry? Please explain. | |||
| 24 | What system does Supplier have in place to track the catalog change order process? USPS's system does track the modification process through a series of revision numbers. How will you track these changes internally? | |||
| 25 | Supplier agrees that all costs involved in meeting the requirements of interfacing with eBuy2 are the responsibility of Supplier's. Please confirm YES or NO. If NO, please explain. | |||
| 29 | Please describe your organization's approach to being able to report on a product's individual environmental (i.e., "Green") attributes? For example, are you able to signify different qualifications, such as "Energy Star Qualified" or "EPEAT", etc.? |
&C&"Arial,Bold"&14eBuy2 Integration Evaluation Questions&R&"Arial,Bold"&14ATTACHMENT #10
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .