Attachment 4 - Cross Reference.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SP4702-24-R-0005
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency
About this file
This is a cross-reference matrix document that outlines the evaluation criteria and proposal submission requirements for the DLA Enterprise Fire Protection Control Systems (FPCS) IDIQ contract. The document includes a compliance checklist, entry gate criteria, and detailed evaluation factors with their relative importance.
The evaluation structure consists of five main factors: Technical/Management Approach, Cybersecurity, Sample Task Order Technical/Staffing Qualifications, Past Performance, and Price. Factors 1 and 2 are equal in importance and, when combined, are more important than Factor 3. All subfactors are equally weighted. The non-price factors combined (1-4) are significantly more important than price. Key requirements include having a Qualified Fire Protection Engineer, demonstrating authorized distributor status for multiple FPCS brands (particularly Simplex, Siemens, Notifier, FCI/Gamewell and Sigcom), cybersecurity capabilities including patch management, DoDM 8140 certified personnel, and relevant past performance within the last 5 years. The document includes detailed rating definitions ranging from Outstanding (Blue) to Unacceptable (Red), along with specific criteria for past performance evaluation including recency, relevancy, and confidence assessments.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 0005.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Updated FPCS Eval Factor 3 Sample TO PWS.pdf | ||
| Purdue Level Information.pptx | PPTX presentation | |
| Inventory from Host Site.pdf | ||
| Service Call Work Authorization.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Updated FPCS Pricing Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Site Visit Roster.pdf | ||
| RFP Questions from vendor.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment - 0004_Signed.pdf | ||
| FPCS PWS.pdf | ||
| PWS Acronym List.pdf | ||
| Attachment 8 - FPCS IDIQ_QASP.pdf | ||
| SP4702-24-R-0005 - FPCS OT Pillar.pdf | ||
| Amendment - 0003.pdf | ||
| Amendment - 0002.pdf | ||
| Amendment - 001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7 - Contractor NDA.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 5 - KTR Experience Questionnaire.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 - FPCS Pricing Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 3 - FPCS Eval Factor 3 Sample TO PWS.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - FPCS PWS.pdf | ||
| SP4702-24-R-0005 - FPCS OT Pillar.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 - Key Personnel Resume Template.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 23
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 |
| IDIQ: 10.2 | Qualified Fire Protection Engineer Support | This entry gate criteria evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s evidence demonstrates that the Offeror either has a QFPE on staff or has a plan to obtain QFPE support through a partner or subcontractor as required. | Acceptable OR Unacceptable (not Awardable) | E.2.2 | The Offeror must submit evidence (and proposed partnering or subcontracting agreement) demonstrating it employees a QFPE or has an agreement with a partner or subcontractor to provide a QFPE. Proposed QFPE resume is required to be submitted. | E.1.6 |
Tradeoff Evaluation Factors/Subfactors:
Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach Subfactor 1A: Factory Authorized Distributor Subfactor 1B: FPCS Experience and Multiple Sites Support Factor 2: Cybersecurity Subfactor 2A: Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach Subfactor 2B: 8140 Certified Personnel Factor 3: Sample Task Order Technical/Staffing Qualifications Subfactor 3A: Preventative Maintenance, Remedial Maintenance, and Service Calls Subfactor 3B: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 3C: Key Personnel Qualifications Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Price Relative Importance: Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equal in importance. Factor 1 and 2, when combined, are more important than Factor 3. All subfactors are equal in importance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4. Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 (non-price), when combined, are significantly more important than price. Roll up Non-Price Rating: Each subfactor within a factor will be rated independently. The subfactor ratings will be rolled-up into one rating under each factor and factor ratings will be rolled-up into one non-price rating. An “unacceptable” rating for any of the subfactors will result in overall rating for non-price evaluation to be Unacceptable and therefore, eliminated for further evaluation for an award.
| 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 |
| Factor 1: Technical / Management Approach | Through the Subfactors of the Technical/Management Approach Factor, the Government will assess the Offeror's familiarity, experience, and technical expertise in understanding and successfully performing the FPCS requirement. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.1 | E.1.8.1 | |||
| IDIQ PWS: 2.0 Objective, Table 1, and 3.0 Scope | Subfactor 1A: Authorized distributer to install and maintain multiple brands of FPCS currently installed in DLA facilities. | This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror’s evidence demonstrates that the Offeror is authorized, factory trained, and certified to provide support and maintenance of multiple brands of FACS currently installed in DLA facilities at various sites. Simplex, Siemens, Notifier, FCI/Gamewell and Sigcom are the most commonly used FPCS systems at the DLA host sites and will be weighed the most in this evaluation. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.2 | The Offeror may submit evidence (authorized dealer certificates, Value Added Reseller (VAR) letter, other documentation ) demonstrating it is authorized, factory trained, and certified by Simplex, Siemens, Notifier, FCI/Gamewell and/or Sigcom for installation maintenance and sustainment. Documentation for other brands may also be provided for consideration. | E.1.8.2 | |
| IDIQ PWS: 2 Objective, 3 Scope, and 5.0 Place of Performance | Subfactor 1B: FPCS Experience and Multiple Sites Support | This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror’s approach demonstrates experience across PWS functional requirements and ability to support multiple FPCS requirements simultaneously across various DLA Host Sites and DLA Tenant locations in CONUS. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.3 | The Offeror may provide up to 25 projects/contracts worked during the previous 5 years demonstrating their: |
1) experience supporting FPCS requirements,
2) experience supporting multiple locations on a contract, and
3) ability to work multiple projects simultaneously.
| Offeror must complete KTR Experience Questionnaire included in the Attachment 7 - Cross Reference Worksheet. | E.1.8.3 | ||||||
| Factor 2: Cybersecurity | Through the Subfactors of the Cybersecurity Factor, the Government will assess the Offeror's familiarity and understanding of the cybersecurity aspects. | E.2.5.4.4 | E.1.8.4 | ||||
| IDIQ PWS: 4.5.1.j under Section 4.5.1 OT and IT Related Support and 4.5.2 Cybersecurity Support sections | Subfactor 2A: Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach | This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror's approach for proactively supporting patch and vulnerability management (Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVAs) and others) for FPCS are located on DLA networks and, also those systems are isolated or standalone. Refer to Attachment for Factor 2 Cybersecurity for further details. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.5 | The Offeror must describe the proactively supporting patch and vulnerability management (Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVAs) and others) for FPCS located on DLA networks, and also those systems that are isolated or standalone. Refer to Attachment 2 - Factor 2 Cybersecurity for further details. | E.1.8.5 | |
| IDIQ PWS: 10.1.5.3 Privileged Access | Subfactor 2B: 8140 Certified Personnel | This subfactor evaluates if the offeror understands certifications required for DoDM 8140 and if they have personnel with those certificates currently. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.6 | The Offeror must provide a list of personnel that currently have 8140 certifications, as well as copies of those certifications. | E.1.8.6 | |
| Factor 3: Task Order Technical/Staffing Qualifications | Through the subfactors of this factor, the Government will assess how the Offeror’s understanding of the FPCS and staffing qualification requirements stated in the PWS. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.7 | E.1.8.7 | |||
| Task Order PWS: 4.3 Task Area 3 – Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment Support (4.3.2 Preventative Maintenance, 4.3.3 Remedial Maintenance, and 4.3.3 part c, Service Calls). | Subfactor 3A: Preventative Maintenance, Remedial Maintenance, and Service Calls |
This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror’s plan demonstrates thorough understanding of preventative and remedial maintenance activities required to keep all FPCS fully operational and compliant. Preventative Maintenance includes a recurring set of scheduled services and actions which to keep systems in a fully operational and compliant state. Remedial Maintenance includes emergency, urgent and routine service and repairs required to restore FPCS to a fully operational state. Adjectival E.2.5.4.8 Preventative Maintenance should address:
• Structure inspection and testing plans
• Timeline/schedule for all Preventative Maintenance tasks, integration with testing plans and coordination with Government Representatives.
• Structure of testing and inspection of high occupancy areas and differences with other areas.
• Concerns with testing and inspection of old systems.
• How testing and inspection will be documented and how documentation can be retrieved.
• How multiyear testing and inspections will be tracked.
Remedial Maintenance should address:
• Response process and timelines for the 3 types of service calls.
• How will materials required for system repair be obtained for the 3 types of service calls.
• How will the system type (i.e. sprinkler, fire alarm, fire pumps) impact response for the 3 types of service calls.
| • Coordinating and follow-up with Government Representatives to provide details of issue, status, projected timeline, repair/corrective active taken, completion time, root cause analysis, and recommendations to avoid recurrence. | E.1.8.8 | |||||
| Task Order PWS: 13 Contractor Quality Control Plan | Subfactor 3B: Quality Control Plan | This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan demonstrates methodology of compliance with the Deliverables in TO PWS and Performance Requirements Summary outlined in the PWS. This subfactor also evaluates whether the Offeror demonstrates its capability in maintaining adequate staffing to ensure the successful performance of the requirement. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.9 | • The Offeror shall describe the methodology of compliance with the Deliverables and Performance Requirements Summary outlined in the PWS. | |
| • The plan shall address approach to maintain fully qualified personnel and to assure the performance of the work in accordance with sound and efficient management practices. | E.1.8.9 | |||||
| Task Order PWS: 10 Personnel Requirements | Subfactor 3C: Key Personnel Qualifications | This subfactor evaluates whether the Offeror’s proposed personnel meet the qualification of the PWS and Instructions to Offerors. |
| Adjectival. | E.2.5.4.10 | The Offeror shall provide resumes of proposed personnel and sufficient documentation of the certifications, licenses, and specific experience based on personnel qualification stated in the PWS. Offeror shall use Attachment 4 - Key Personnel Resume Template. | E.1.8.10 | ||||
| N/A | Factor 4: Past Performance | This factor evaluates three aspects to the past performance: recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror's past performance to determine their confidence level in successfully performing the requirement. | Adjectival | E.2.5.4.11 | The Offeror shall list no more than Five (5) contracts awarded for work same or similar in scope: supported projects for ESS and EKC systems. The proposal shall include a narrative that describes the following for each contract cited: | ||
| • | Government agency or private company name | ||||||
| • | Address | ||||||
| • | Contract Number (if applicable) | ||||||
| • | Dollar Value | ||||||
| • | Period of Performance | ||||||
| • | Description of work | ||||||
| If the Offeror does not have any past performance, provide an affirmative statement stating no past performance. | E.1.8.11 |
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 .