9_26-004C_ATT_E-1_Bid_Response_pt2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 26-004C RFQQ
- Issued by
- Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, Yakima County, Asotin City, Clarkston City, Clarkston Heights-Vineland CDP, West Clarkston-Highland CDP, Benton City, Chelan City, Chelan Falls CDP, Clallam Bay CDP, Lewisville CDP, Rock Island City, Pacific Beach CDP, Whidbey Island Station CDP, Mercer Island City, Pacific City, Bainbridge Island City, Kingston CDP, Kitsap Lake CDP, Kittitas City, Klickitat CDP, Okanogan City, Anderson Island CDP, Fort Lewis CDP, Fox Island CDP, Herron Island CDP, Ketron Island CDP, North Fort Lewis CDP, Raft Island CDP, Stevenson City, Hat Island CDP, Lake Stevens City, Snohomish City, Spokane City, Spokane Valley City, Puget Island CDP, Garfield Town, Yakima City, Washington
About this file
Summary
This is a bid response template and evaluation framework document for RFQQ 26-004C issued by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) Office of Drinking Water (ODW). The solicitation seeks a qualified contractor to manage the transition from the DOH's legacy data platform (Sentry) to the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) State application suite. The initial contract period is expected to be approximately six years. The bid response document is structured in three main sections: Minimum Qualifications (Section 1 for Bidder Firm and Section 2 for Bidder Staff), Desirable Qualifications, and Cost Quotation. Bidders must demonstrate expertise in SDWIS State operations, data migration, cloud hosting with SOC 2 Type II or ISO/IEC 27001 certification, compliance with federal and state regulations, and project management methodologies including Agile. The evaluation framework assigns a maximum of 230 Stage 1 weighted points for minimum qualifications and 1,368 Stage 2 weighted points across both firm and staff qualifications.
The cost quotation section requires bidders to provide detailed breakdowns of one-time transition costs (including project management, data migration, security reviews, deployment, and implementation of an External User Viewer) and recurring costs (maintenance and operations, hosting fees, and customization charges) across a five-year period from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2032. The cost quotation contributes 15 percent to the total bid score, with the Budget Justification representing 10 percent and the Overall Cost Amount representing 5 percent. Desirable qualifications, valued at 1,026 weighted points, include experience supporting public-sector IT projects, managing complex data system transitions, providing customizable dashboards, and delivering comprehensive training and documentation artifacts. Bidders failing to demonstrate minimum qualifications or provide complete cost information will be considered non-responsive and disqualified from evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 7_26-004C_ATT_D-2_GTC_Change_Req.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6_26-004C_ATT_D-1_GT&Cs.pdf | ||
| 1_26-004C_RFQQ_Sentry_to_SDWIS.pdf | ||
| 5_26-004C_ATT_D_Sample_Contract.pdf | ||
| 10_26-004C_ATT_E-2_Bid_Response_pt3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 11_26-004C_ATT_F_SOW.pdf | ||
| 14_26-004C_ATT_G_Sample_DSA.pdf | ||
| 4_26-004C_ATT_C_Bidder_Certs_v8.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3_26-004C_ATT_B_DBI_v8.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8_26-004C_ATT_E_Bid_Response_pt1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 12_26-004C_ATT_F-1_Fed_Reporting.pdf | ||
| 13_26-004C_ATT_F-2_Sentry_Mapping.pdf | ||
| 2_26-004C_ATT_A_Bid_Submission_Ltr.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 13
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
Minimum Qualifications
| DOH26-004C RFQQ | |||||
| Attachment E-1: Bidder Response part 2 | Bidder Firm Name: | Enter Bidder Firm Name Here | |||
| Section | Category | Pass/Fail | |||
| 1 | Bidder Minimum Qualifications: Bidder must meet all the Minimum Qualifications described in Section 1 below. | This line for solicitation Coordinator | |||
| 2 | Bidder Staff Minimum Qualifications: Bidder must provide staff who meet all the Minimum Qualifications described in Section 2 below. | This line for solicitation Coordinator | |||
| Instructions |
1. Review Qualifications, Category, and Requirements.
2. Go to Bidder Response column. Provide a written response that describes the Bidder Firm's experience, or Bidder Staff Members' experience as applicable, performing the work described.
Bidder should provide concise answers with sufficient detail for evaluators to score based on quality and quantity of that experience, and applicability to this project (repetitive answers are acceptable).
NOTE: Bidder can include separate documents as attachments, if needed. All attachments must be labeled with the requirement ID number and the Written Response column must indicate the page number and/or section title of the attachment where the response can be found.
Bidders failing to demonstrate in their Bids that they meet minimum qualifications will be considered nonresponsive and will therefore be disqualified from further consideration. Stage 1 Weighted Scoring for each line item / criteria in the category: a score of 5 points per line item/criteria is assigned a Stage 1 weighting factor (a multiplier from 1-4, reflecting its importance in the category).
The Stage 1 weighted score is 5-20 points per line item/criteria.
| The DOH evaluators will score from 0-5 points, and the weighting multipliers will be used to calculate the individual line item scores for the category. | Stage 2 Weighted Scoring for the entire category: the weighting factor is 5.95 or 40% of the total score. This column shows the maximum points possible for each line item/criteria, so that bidders can see the importance to the overall project. This category total maximum score represents 40% of the total bid score. | ||||||
| Section 1 | Bidder Firm Minimum Qualifications: Bidder Firm must meet all the minimum qualifications listed below. | Bidder Response column. Provide a written response that describes the Bidder Firm's experience performing the work described. | |||||
| Bidder should provide concise answers with sufficient detail for evaluators to score based on quality and quantity of that experience, and applicability to this project (repetitive answers are acceptable). Provide responses below: | points | weight | 5.95 | ||||
| 1 | Describe Bidder Firm's demonstrated experience maintaining compliance with 2 CFR 200 as applicable. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 2 | Describe Bidder Firm's ability to adhere to all Washington State laws, including laws pertinent to data privacy, security, and storage. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 3 | Describe Bidder Firm's expert experience with cloud hosting and have current SOC 2 Type II or ISO/IEC 27001 certification (provide latest report). | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| 4 | Describe Bidder Firm's professional expert level experience configuring, implementing, and operating the SDWIS State application suite. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 119 | ||
| 5 | Describe Bidder Firm's demonstrated experience maintaining compliance with 40 CFR 141, 40 CFR 142, and 40 CFR 143 as applicable. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 119 | ||
| 6 | Describe Bidder Firm's established technical support infrastructure capable of delivering timely user assistance. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| 7 | Describe Bidder Firm's ability to provide system monitoring, maintenance, and backups to ensure a minimum of 99.5% system uptime and improved rate of data integrity. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 8 | Demonstrated expertise and experience: by providing resumes/CVs and other documentation of staffing sufficient to perform this project. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 9 | Demonstrated Financial Stability and Staffing Requirements sufficient to perform this project. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| 10 | Demonstrated expertise, experience, ability, and willingness to work collaboratively with DOH to transition to new solution, comparable to the project described in this RFQQ. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 11 | Demonstrated expertise, experience, ability and willingness to work collaboratively with DOH’s successor contractor to transition at end of any contract resulting from this RFQQ. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 12 | Must be willing and able to enter into and comply with all terms of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) (see example DSA, Attachment F DSA). | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| Section 2 | Bidder Staff Minimum Qualifications: Bidder must provide staff who meet all the Minimum Qualifications described in Section 2 below. | Bidder Response column. Provide a written response that describes the Bidder staff members' experience performing the work described. | |||||
| Bidder should provide concise answers with sufficient detail for evaluators to score based on quality and quantity of that experience, and applicability to this project (repetitive answers are acceptable). Attach resumes/CVs and provide responses below. Be sure to identify the staff members referenced. | points | weight | |||||
| 1 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert experience migrating and transitioning another state or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) region from a non-SDWIS database to a SDWIS State database. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 119 | ||
| 2 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert experience in large scale, complex data sets. | 5 | 3 | 15 | 89.25 | ||
| 3 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert understanding of SDWIS State, its operations, and requirements. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 119 | ||
| 4 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert proficiency with creating a detailed migration plan to include roll back procedures, mapping, migrating and validating data. | 5 | 3 | 15 | 89.25 | ||
| 5 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert understanding of Microsoft Entra ID (single sign on). | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 6 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert experience performing requirements gathering, gap analysis, and writing use cases. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| 7 | Describe Bidder Staff's expert experience in project management methodology, to include Agile. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 119 | ||
| 8 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated technical experience in MS Project. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 29.75 | ||
| 9 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated technical experience in MS SharePoint. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 59.5 | ||
| Maximum Points Possible: | 230 | 1368 |
Stage 1 Maximum Weighted points possible = 230 Stage 2 Maximum Weighted points possible = 1368
Desirable Quals
| DOH26-004C RFQQ | |||
| Attachment E-1: Bidder Response part 2 | Bidder Firm Name: | Enter Bidder Firm Name Here | |
| Instructions |
1. Review Qualifications, Category, and Requirements.
2. Go to Bidder Response column. Provide a written response that describes the Bidder's experience performing the work described.
Bidder should provide concise answers with sufficient detail for evaluators to score based on quality and quantity of that experience, and applicability to this project (repetitive answers are acceptable).
NOTE: Bidder can include separate documents as attachments, if needed. All attachments must be labeled with the requirement ID number and the Written Response column must indicate the page number and/or section title of where the attachment can be found. Stage 1 Weighted Scoring for each line item / criteria in the category: a score of 5 points per line item/criteria is assigned a Stage 1 weighting factor (a multiplier from 1-4, reflecting its importance in the category).
The Stage 1 weighted score is 5-20 points per line item/criteria.
| The DOH evaluators will score from 0-5 points, and the weighting multipliers will be used to calculate the individual line item scores for the category. | Stage 2 Weighted Scoring for the entire category: the weighting factor is 5.13 or 30% of the total score. This column shows the maximum points possible for each line item/criteria, so that bidders can see the importance to the overall project. This category total maximum score represents 30% of the total bid score. | ||||||
| Desirable Qualifications: Bidder Firm | Bidder Response column. Provide a written response that describes the Bidder's experience performing the work described. | ||||||
| Bidder should provide concise answers with sufficient detail for evaluators to score based on quality and quantity of that experience, and applicability to this project (repetitive answers are acceptable). | Points | Weight | 5.13 | ||||
| 1 | Describe Bidder Firm's demonstrated experience supporting public-sector agencies in large-scale IT projects | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 2 | Describe Bidder Firm's demonstrated experience supporting transition of complex data systems making sure no loss of business productivity. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 102.6 | ||
| 3 | Describe Bidder Firm's Capability to offer customizable dashboards and analytics for performance monitoring and program evaluation. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 4 | Describe Bidder Firm's Scrum and Sprint Planning experience | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 5 | Describe Bidder Firm's willingness and ability to partner with DOH to develop and execute a complete, secure migration plan. Includes data mapping, cleaning, validation, de-identification, and 100% record-level reconciliation. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| Desirable Qualifications: Bidder Staff Members | |||||||
| 1 Security and Compliance Qualifications | |||||||
| 6 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Office of Cybersecurity (OCS) Design Review Checklist: A completed checklist documenting security design review findings, partnered with DOH. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 2 Analysis and Design Qualifications | |||||||
| 7 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Solution Enterprise Architecture Documentation: Includes architecture diagrams, system design, network diagrams (as applicable to SaaS integrations), data flows, and infrastructure overview for the hosted environment. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 8 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Data Dictionary: Comprehensive listing of all data elements, definitions, formats, sources, and relationships, particularly for migrated historical data. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 9 | Describe Bidder Staff's ability to provide expert business analysis, quality assurance, and development artifacts and documentation. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 10 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with implementation of an External User Viewer Platform available to the public using a centralized web-based platform for accessing, visualizing, and exporting drinking water system information. | 5 | 4 | 20 | 102.6 | ||
| 3 Configuration, Development and Implementation Qualifications | |||||||
| 11 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Configuration Planning: Detailed plan outlining all SaaS application configurations, customizations, and settings based on approved requirements. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 12 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Development Planning: Sprint Planning, Retrospective, and Roles. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 13 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with a Fully Configured SaaS Application: The complete, Contractor-hosted application instance (Dev, Test, and Prod environments) configured per approved requirements, with provisioned access credentials provided. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 14 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a System Documentation Package: | ||||||
| Including a System Architecture and Design Document, Network and Integration Diagrams (internal DOH network and WaTech portal), System Admin Guide, User Manuals (for internal users and external submitters), and API Documentation (if applicable for integrations) | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | |||
| 4 Data Migration Qualifications | |||||||
| 15 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Data Migration Execution Report: Post-migration report confirming successful migration, including validation results, data integrity checks, issue log, and resolution of any discrepancies. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 5 Testing Qualifications | |||||||
| 16 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Testing Plan covering unit, integration, system, performance, security, and User Acceptance Testing (UAT) phases, including test cases traceable to requirements. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 17 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Test Results Reports: Summary reports for all testing phases, including defects identified, resolutions, and re-testing evidence. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 6 Deployment and Go-Live Qualifications | |||||||
| 18 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating an Implementation and Deployment Plan: Step-by-step plan for deploying to Production, including cutover schedule, rollback procedures, and go-live checklist. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 19 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan: Document outlining Contractor responsibilities for uptime, backups, recovery time objectives (RTO/RPO), and fully defined Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for the hosted SaaS environment (e.g., availability, support response times, performance monitoring). | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 20 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Go-Live Readiness Checklist and Sign-Off: Confirmation that all prerequisites are met, followed by successful production deployment. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| 7 Training Qualifications | |||||||
| 21 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Comprehensive Training Plan: Plan detailing training approach, schedule, and audience-specific sessions. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 22 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Training Materials: | ||||||
| Including Materials and/or recorded e-learning modules for internal DOH users, User-friendly materials (e.g., guides, videos, recorded modules) tailored for external, non-DOH submitters, Specialized materials for DOH system administrators. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | |||
| 23 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with Delivering Training Sessions: Conducted live or virtual sessions per the Training Plan, with attendance records and feedback summaries provided. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 8 Transition to Support Qualifications | |||||||
| 24 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Transition Plan for handover to customer including hyper-care support period (e.g., 30–90 days post-go-live), and ongoing maintenance responsibilities defined. | 5 | 2 | 10 | 51.3 | ||
| 25 | Describe Bidder Staff's demonstrated experience with creating a Post-Implementation Review Report: Conducted 30–60 days after go-live, summarizing outcomes, lessons learned, performance against KPIs, and any recommended improvements. | 5 | 1 | 5 | 25.65 | ||
| Maximum Points Possible: | 200 | 1026 |
Stage 1 Maximum Weighted points possible = 200 Stage 2 Maximum Weighted points possible = 1026
Quotations
| DOH26-004C RFQQ | |||
| Attachment E-1: Bidder Response part 2 | Bidder Firm Name: | Enter Bidder Firm Name Here | |
| Cost Quotation | |||
| Bidder must show the total cost and breakout of costs associated with this bid. Bids that do not show a total cost and breakout of costs will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated. |
Response prices must include all cost components needed to provide the goods or services as described in this solicitation. All costs associated with the good or services must be incorporated into the price of the Bidder’s response. A Bidder’s failure to identify all costs in a manner consistent with the instructions in this Competitive Solicitation is sufficient grounds for disqualification.
The evaluation process is designed to award this solicitation not necessarily to the Bidder of least cost, but rather to the Bidder whose bid best meets the requirements of this Solicitation. Bidders are encouraged, however, to submit bids which are consistent with state government efforts to conserve state resources.
Note that the Cost Quotation score is made up of two parts and the scores are weighted:
1. The Budget Justification score makes up 10% of the total Bid score.
| 2. The Overall Cost Amount score makes up 5% of the total Bid score. | Section 1: MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE = 342 | ||
| 1 | Budget Justification: |
Bidder must show the cost for completing the work as shown on the Response document, including applicable breakout of costs, and clearly accounts for materials and other costs needed to properly execute their contract effectively.
| At a minimum, Bidder should break out costs as shown below. | Include all costs except WA sales taxes in this column: | Show any applicable WA Sales Tax in this column | Subtotal | Points | Weight | |||
| One-time Costs: | ||||||||
| Transition Costs from legacy solution to Bidder's proposed solution (Describe one-time costs and break out separately as needed so that costs can be understood by DOH Evaluators: Set-up, migration, etc.; add additional lines as necessary). | 250 | 1 | 250 | |||||
| Project Management; Project Schedule; Analysis of Systems at DOH – ODW; Evaluation of Unmet Business Needs and Summarize Findings; Data mapping and Data Migration (Sentry to SDWIS Database); Integration of DOH Single Sign On; Complete DOH and WaTech Security Reviews; Deployment and Implementation of SDWIS State in Cloud Environment (QA &PROD); User Acceptance Testing; Training; Deployment/Go Live; System Documentation | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Implementation of External User Viewer (example, Drinking Water Viewer (DWV) or equivalent or better) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Time & Materials/future Customization charges. Provide sufficient detail for evaluators to understand the hourly rate or other basis for charges. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Recurring Costs: | ||||||||
| Describe all recurring costs, Subscription or Licensing fees, and any other costs: | 92 | 1 | 92 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations: Prorated per month (for the purposes of quoting, use 1 month cost after Go-Live date through end of State Fiscal Year (June 30) describe how partial annual and partial month costs will be calculated (per day, per month, flat fee, etc.) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations:First full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations:Second full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2028-June 30, 2029: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations:Third full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2029-June 30, 2030: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations:Fourth full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2030-June 30, 2031: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Maintenance and Operations:Fifth full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2031-June 30, 2032: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| (add additional lines as necessary) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: Prorated per month (for the purposes of quoting, use 1 month cost after Go-Live date through end of State Fiscal Year (June 30) describe how partial annual and partial month costs will be calculated (per day, per month, flat fee, etc.) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: First full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: Second full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2028-June 30, 2029: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: Third full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2029-June 30, 2030: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: Fourth full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2030-June 30, 2031: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| Hosting Fees: Fifth full year Annual cost based on State Fiscal Year July 1, 2031-June 30, 2032: Describe any changes, including annual increase, if any. | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| (add additional lines as necessary) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| (add additional lines as necessary to describe other recurring costs) | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | |||||
| $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | ||||||
| $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | ||||||
| $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | ||||||
| Section 1: MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE = | 342 | |||||||
| 2 | Total Cost Quotation: | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | 171 | 1 | 171 | |
| Section 2: MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE = | 171 |
| Sections 1 and 2: | ||
| MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE = | 513 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .