Attachment 12_Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.xlsx

Mandatory Statutory Criteria

NOTE 1: Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) = An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards (CAS) prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. §3014). For the purpose of this Guide, the phrase “the solicitation of sources” refers to the initial agreement solicitation only. A nontraditional defense contractor is considered a nontraditional defense contractor for the duration of the prototype project/agreement’s period of performance, or for any in-scope work modified under the same agreement (Other Transactions Guide, July 2023, Version 2.0).

NOTE 2: Non-profit research institution is validated by reviewing the vendor’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which is required by the Internal Revenue Service.

NOTE 4: Failure to provide supporting documentation will eliminate a company from being considered for an award and the proposal will not be evaluated further.

Factor 1-Corporate Exp.

Recency: One or both examples provided are ongoing or have been completed within the past 5 years.

Relevancy: The example(s) clearly demonstrate the vendor's experience in both structuring and implementing complex business processes AND designing and executing sucessful Proof of Concepts (POC). The provided example(s) closely align with the current project in terms of technical nature, size, complexity, and overall objectives, indicating a strong understanding of the requirements and the ability to deliver comparable solutions.

The vendor provides clear and concise details about their role, methodologies used, challenges addressed, and quantifiable, successful outcomes achieved in each example.

4 Reasonable Expectation: The vendor demonstrates relevant experience, but with potential limitations that may require further consideration:

Recency: One or both examples provided are ongoing or have been completed within the past 5 years.

Relevancy: The example(s) demonstrate the vendor's experience in both business process implementation AND successful POC design and execution. At least one example demonstrates a similar alignment with the current project in terms of technical nature, size, complexity, and overall objectives. The vendor provides sufficient details about their role, methodologies, challenges, and outcomes, but some aspects may require clarification or further elaboration.

Recency: One or both examples are less recent (5-7 years old).

Relevancy: Example(s) demonstrate limited experience in either business process implementation or POC design and execution, or the example(s) are not directly applicable to the current project's requirements.

Example(s) demonstrate a weak connection to the current project's specific needs and objectives.

Limited details are provided about the vendor's role, methodologies, challenges, and outcomes in the examples.

1 No Expectation: The vendor fails to demonstrate relevant or recent experience, and the provided examples show no clear alignment with the current project:

Recency/Relevancy: The vendor provides no examples, irrelevant examples, inadequate examples (e.g., showcasing unsuccessful outcomes), or outdated examples (over seven years old).

· Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved

· Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).

· Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.

Example contract(s) / agreements(s) provided shall demonstrate vendor's capabilities in both business process structuring and proof of concept design and execution that are similar in technical nature, size, and complexity that correlates to this project's Statement of Objectives Performance Parameters (Atch 1) and Statement of Objectives (Atch 2).

Factor 2-Sub 1-Execution Plan

Subcontracting Plan:

* Identification & Expertise: The vendor meticulously identifies each subcontractor by name and CAGE code and provides a detailed explanation of their specific expertise, highlighting a perfect alignment with the project's unique demands.

* Evidence: The plan provides compelling and quantifiable evidence (e.g., performance metrics from nearly identical projects, strong customer testimonials) of the subcontractor's ability not just to meet, but to exceed performance standards.

* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a detailed approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including clear communication channels, quality control measures, and specific milestones integrated into the overall project schedule.

* Risk Mitigation: The vendor anticipates potential risks and outlines robust, specific, and proactive mitigation strategies tailored to the project's complexities.

Prime In-House Execution Plan

* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides explicit and detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions throughout the project lifecycle. They clearly demonstrate how those capabilities perfectly align with the project's unique needs.

* Evidence: The plan offers concrete examples and quantifiable data (e.g., successful project metrics from similar projects, staff credentials and certifications) that strongly substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.

* Advantages: The vendor clearly articulates the unique advantages of in-house execution for this specific project, going beyond general statements.

* Continuous Improvement: The vendor demonstrates a robust, well-defined system for continuous improvement, including how lessons learned will be captured and implemented.

4 Thorough Approach (All Criteria Met Well):

Subcontracting Plan:

* Identification & Expertise: The vendor clearly identifies subcontractors by name and CAGE code. They provide a clear explanation of each subcontractor's expertise and experience relevant to the assigned functions.

* Evidence: The plan provides solid evidence (e.g., past project experience, client references) of the subcontractor's ability to meet performance standards and adhere to the proposed schedule.

* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a well-defined approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including communication plans and quality control measures.

* Risk Mitigation: The vendor acknowledges potential risks and outlines clear mitigation strategies.

Prime In-House Execution

* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions.

* Evidence: The plan offers examples and demonstrable experience that substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.

* Advantages: The vendor outlines the advantages of in-house execution for the project.

* Continuous Improvement: The vendor expresses a clear commitment to continuous improvement and outlines their approach.

3 Adequate Approach (Some Criteria Met, Some Minor Weaknesses):

Subcontracting Plan:

* Identification & Expertise: The vendor identifies subcontractors and provides a general description of their experience and expertise, but the relevance to the specific project may not be as strong.

* Evidence: The plan offers some evidence that subcontractors can perform the required functions, but the evidence may not be directly comparable to the current project or as convincing.

* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan outlines a basic approach for managing subcontractor performance but may lack detail in key areas like communication or quality control.

* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is addressed generally but may lack specificity.

Prime In-House Execution:

* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides a general overview of their internal capabilities and available resources, but may lack specificity.

* Evidence: The plan offers some examples and experience to support their ability to execute the project, but the evidence may not be entirely convincing or directly relevant.

* Advantages: Advantages of in-house execution are vaguely addressed.

* Continuous Improvement: Plans for continuous improvement are not clearly defined.

2 Does Not Demonstrate Adequate Approach (Significant Weaknesses, Missing Information):

Subcontracting Plan:

*Identification or Expertise: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding subcontractor expertise and experience. Subcontractor identification may be incomplete (missing CAGE codes, etc.).

*Evidence: The provided evidence is weak, irrelevant, or incomplete, raising concerns about the subcontractor's ability to meet performance standards or the proposed schedule.

* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan for ensuring subcontractor performance is incomplete or lacks key elements, raising concerns about the vendor's ability to manage subcontractors effectively.

* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is either absent or superficial.

Prime In-House Execution:

* Details & Alignment: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding internal expertise, resources, or processes.

* Evidence: The provided evidence is weak, irrelevant, or raises doubts about the vendor's capacity to handle the project in-house.

* Advantages: The plan fails to adequately justify the choice of in-house execution.

* Continuous Improvement: The plan does not adequately address continuous improvement.

1 Plan Does Not Meet Requirement (Unacceptable, Major Gaps):

Subcontracting Plan:

* Identification or Expertise: The vendor fails to adequately identify subcontractors or provide sufficient information about their qualifications.

* Evidence: The plan lacks evidence of the subcontractor's ability to perform the required functions.

* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan does not outline a clear approach for managing subcontractor performance.

* Risk Mitigation: The plan demonstrates a lack of understanding or consideration of potential risks associated with subcontracting.

Prime In-House Execution

* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides inadequate or no information about their internal capabilities, resources, or processes.

* Evidence: The plan fails to demonstrate the vendor's ability to execute the project in-house.

* Advantages: The plan lacks justification for the in-house approach and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the project's needs.

* Continuous Improvement: The vendor did not address continuous improvement..

Factor 2-Sub 2-Tech Approach

Conceptual Narrative:

This narrative demonstrates a strong and well-considered approach to project execution. The plan outlines a strategy for phasing work in accordance with the SOO, performance parameters, and outage constraints, suggesting a good understanding of the project's operational context. The emphasis on demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of project requirements is positive, as is the commitment to breaking down complex tasks into manageable, logically sequenced components for efficient execution and monitoring. The plan to implement rigorous controls to minimize operational disruption is also reassuring. The narrative highlights the development of a realistic design schedule that addresses critical lead times and incorporates fast-tracking strategies where necessary, demonstrating a commitment to meeting the contract schedule and outage timeframe. Finally, the emphasis on leveraging a deep understanding of System Operations and System Maintenance principles suggests the proposer understands how to deliver outcomes that enhance overall system performance and reliability.

3 Adequate Approach (Generally Sound, But Lacks Specificity, Depth, or Robustness in Scalability):

Conceptual Narrative: The narrative outlines an adequate approach to project execution. It describes a plan for phasing work in accordance with the SOO, performance parameters, and outage constraints, suggesting a basic understanding of the project's operational context. The narrative mentions demonstrating an understanding of project requirements and breaking down tasks into manageable components, which is a standard expectation. The plan includes implementing controls to minimize operational disruption, which is also a common practice. The inclusion of a design schedule that addresses lead times and considers fast-tracking demonstrates an awareness of scheduling considerations. Finally, the narrative alludes to understanding System Operations and System Maintenance principles, which is expected for this type of project. Overall, this demonstrates an adequate approach to project execution.

1 Approach Does Not Meet Requirement (Unacceptable, Major Deficiencies, No Clear Plan, or Inability to Meet Staffing Demands): Conceptual Narrative: The narrative presents an approach to project execution that, while attempting to address key areas, ultimately falls short of meeting the necessary requirements. The outlined strategy for phasing work in accordance with the SOO, performance parameters, and outage constraints lacks sufficient detail and leaves questions regarding practical implementation. While it mentions demonstrating an understanding of project requirements, the narrative fails to provide concrete examples or evidence of this understanding. The proposed breakdown of tasks into manageable components appears superficial, lacking a clear articulation of how this will be achieved. The planned controls to minimize operational disruption are vaguely defined, raising concerns about their effectiveness. Furthermore, the discussion of the design schedule lacks the necessary granularity regarding critical lead times and fast-tracking strategies, casting doubt on the proposer's ability to meet the contract schedule and outage timeframe. Finally, the narrative's allusion to understanding System Operations and System Maintenance principles is unsubstantiated, failing to demonstrate the necessary depth of knowledge. Overall, the narrative demonstrates a deficient approach to project execution.

Factor 2-Sub 3-Schedule

Factor 2-Sub 4-Data Rights

Factor 1 & 2 Scoring Matrix

Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2): 0.00

Factor 3 - Price

Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2):

Value Rating of Next Highest Rated Solution (1-25) Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2):

Highest rated solution is considered to be "X%" better than next highest rated solution ERROR:#DIV/0! "X%"= (Highest Value Rated Solution - Next Highest Value Rated Solution) / Next Highest Value Rated Solution

*The Government will justify paying "X%" more / less for the solution that is considered to be "X" better than the next best solution.

Prototype MS