Attachment 3 ABCS UCS - Cross Reference Matrix12.19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BCS/UCS DLA ENTERPRISE REQUIREMENT
- Solicitation number
- SP470525R002026
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency
About this file
This is a Cross Reference Matrix compliance checklist template that outlines the proposal evaluation process and rating criteria for a Building Control System (BCS) and Utility Control System (UCS) contract opportunity. The document details three evaluation phases: proposal compliance review, gate entry criteria focused on cybersecurity capabilities, and trade-off source selection.
The matrix specifies evaluation factors including IDIQ Technical/Management Expertise, HQ Task Order Technical/Management/Key Personnel, and subfactors covering routine maintenance, site management, cybersecurity expertise, and key personnel qualifications. It includes detailed rating definitions using a color-coded system (Blue/Outstanding through Red/Unacceptable) and past performance evaluation criteria measuring recency (within 5 years), relevancy (based on contract value, supported sites, and performance period), and performance confidence assessments. The document serves as a compliance template for contractors to complete, with specific sections highlighted in green for contractor input.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 0002_Questions_Answers_24 JAN 2025_FINAL.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1.5 TO_and IDIQ Equipment List for DDJC.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 5 - Contractor NDA.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1.2 TO_and_IDIQ Equipment List Richmond.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1A - Draft BCS_UCS PWS HQ Task Order 12.17.pdf | ||
| DFAFT RFP SP4705-25-R-2026_BCS_UCS_.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - Key Personnel Resume Template.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2A - Pricing Sheet_BCS UCS TO Schedule B.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 - Pricing Sheet_BCS UCS IDIQ Schedule B R1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1.4 TO IDIQ Facility Equipment List for Columbus.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1 - Draft BCS_UCS PWS HQ IDIQ 12.17.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1.1 DLA HQC HVAC Equipment List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1.3 TO IDIQ Facility Equipment List _DDSP_.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Compliance Checklist Proposal Review/Evaluation Process and Compliance Review Checklist Instruction to Contractor: fill in green highlighted cells only.
| Review Process: | ||
| 1 | Proposal Compliance Review | If acceptable, go to next step #2 |
| 2 | Gate Entry Criteria | If acceptable, go to next step #3 |
| 3 | Trade Off Source Selection |
Compliance Checklist Reference Contractor to confirm Yes Govt Verification Verified by Date Comment
| Submitted a complete proposal package by closing date and time? | |
| Completed Block 17 of SF1449? | |
| Completed and signed Block 30 of SF1449? | |
| Submitted signed Amendment(s) as applicable? | |
| Submitted complete Cross Reference Worksheet? | |
| Followed format and content from Instructions for Offeror? | |
| Submitted Entry Gate Criteria proposal? | |
| Submitted complete Non-Price proposal? | |
| Submitted complete Price/Cost proposal? | |
| Meet SB size standard for NAICS solicited? | |
| SAM registration active? |
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
Cross Reference FPCS Cross Reference - Entry Gate Criteria and Evaluation Factors Instruction to Contractor: fill in green highlighted cells only.
| Entry Gate Criteria Review | |||||||
| PWS Ref Section | Criteria | Evaluation | Rating | Ref Section | Instructions | Ref Section | Cross Reference Matrix for Contractor |
| Section C.4 | Entry Gate: Proposals will be evaluated on Cybersecurity Capabilities and Expertise. | Cybersecurity Capabilities and Expertise (Pass/Fail): Through the Subfactors of the Cybersecurity Capabilities and Expertise, the Government will assess the Offeror's familiarity and understanding of the cybersecurity aspects. | Pass/Fail | Offerors shall provide a narrative addressing the Offeror’s capability to effectively and efficiently manage and oversee the cybersecurity capabilities in accordance with the PWS. | |||
| Section C4, C4.6, C4.7.6 | Subfactor A: Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) | All system/network components and applications shall be compatible with all applicable Defense Information System Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs). Any STIG exceptions must be identified as part of the Contractor’s proposal to the Government and approved by J6 Cybersecurity. Exceptions incurring risk found unacceptable to the DLA Authorizing Official are not permitted. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor shall provide a complete list of all ports, protocols and services (PPSM) required for any computer system running control system applications or required to interface the control system applications. | |||
| Section C4.7 | Subfactor B: Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach | The Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach satisfies the Government’s requirements as identified in the PWS. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor will be responsible for all installation, configuration, and deployment of the OT solution(s) and/or system(s) (including but not limited to) its subsystem(s), application(s), and patch cabling, if required. | |||
| Section C4.1 | Subfactor C: 8140 Certified Personnel | A Staffing Plan should be provided in the Contractor’s technical proposal and updated throughout the duration of the contract if significant changes occur. Contractor personnel supporting cybersecurity functions shall be appropriately certified according to DoD Manual (DoDM) 8140.03 Cyberspace Workforce Qualification & Management Program upon contract and/or MOD awards. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor is responsible to provide qualified personnel, as specified, and as required by the PWS, and shall bear all cost for training its personnel. |
| PWS | Evaluation Factors for Award | Instructions to Offeror | Cross Reference Matrix for Contractor | ||||
| PWS Ref Section | Factor/Subfactors | Evaluation Criteria | Rating | Ref Section | Instructions | Ref Section | Reference Volume/ Page/Para |
| Section C2.39 | FACTOR 1: IDIQ Technical and Management Expertise/Approach | The IDIQ Technical and Management Expertise/Approach factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical and project management capabilities, as detailed in its proposal, satisfies the Government’s requirements as identified in the PWS. |
Technical capabilities will be evaluated on the basis of the feasibility, comprehensiveness, and quality of the Offeror’s technical approach. Technical Capability must demonstrate a complete understanding of the objectives/requirements of the PWS and RFP.
| Adjectival | Offerors shall provide a technical narrative addressing the Offeror’s capability to effectively and efficiently perform in accordance with the PWS. The Government will review proposals to determine whether or not the Offeror has adequately demonstrated an ability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. | ||
| Section C2.40 | FACTOR 2: HQ Task Order Technical/Management/Key Personnel | The Key Personnel factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed personnel approach, as detailed in its proposal, will satisfy the Government’s personnel requirements as identified in the PWS. | Offerors shall provide a narrative addressing the Offeror’s capability to provide qualified, certified, licensed personnel with the appropriate security clearance to manage and perform in accordance with the PWS. The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel will be evaluated on their ability to meet the qualification and security clearance requirements of the PWS. |
| Section C3.4 | Subfactor 2A: Routine Maintenance Technical Plan | The Routine Maintenance Technical Plan factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical plan satisfies the Government's requirements as identified in the PWS. | The Contractor shall perform PM and repair services in such a manner that all equipment within the scope of this contract operates in accordance with manufacture’s recommended specifications and the publications. |
| Section C2.50 | Subfactor 2B: Site Management and Quality Control Plans | The Site Management and Quality Control Plans factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror's proposed site management and quality control plan satifies the Government's requirements as idendified in the PWS. | The Contractor shall maintain a QCP to actively identify and correct performance failures for all work performed under this contract. The QCP must identify resources and include |
| Section C4.4 | Subfactor 2C: Cybersecurity Expertise and Plan | The Cybersecurity Expertise and Plan factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror's proposed cybersecurity expertise and plan satisfies the Government's requirements as idendified in the PWS. | The Contractor shall design, develop, and integrate cybersecurity solutions supporting the Department of Defense and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and its subordinate commands. |
| Section C2.42.4 | Subfactor 2D: Key Personnel (Certifications, Qualifications, Experience) | BCS/UCS System/Site specific key personnel will be required at the TO level. Each TO PWS will detail the specific Key Personnel required for each DLA site. | The Contractor shall provide the specific key personnel required in the PWS. |
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
Rating descriptions Factor/Subfactor Adjectival Ratings
| Color Rating | Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Blue | 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. |
| Purple | 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. |
| Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Yellow | Marginal | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. |
| Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) Ratings |
| Green | Acceptable (Pass) | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Red | Unacceptable (Fail) | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. |
| Strength/Weakness/Deficiency Definitions |
| Significant Strength | An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance |
| Strength | An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. |
| Weakness | A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Significant Weakness | A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Deficiency | A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. |
| Past Performance Recency Rating | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Recent | Past performance (contract started) within 5 years from closing date of this solicitation. |
| Not Recent | Past performance (contract started) over 5 years from closing date of this solicitation. |
| Past Performance Relevancy Ratings | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value over $10M, at least 10 supported sites, and performance period at least 12 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value over $5M, at least 5 supported sites, and performance period at least 6 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value under $5M, less than 5 supported sites, and performance period less than 6 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Performance Confidence Assessment Rating | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Neutral Confidence | No recent / relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. |
| Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .