Attachment 2 - Go-NoGo Evaluation Step 1 - Traceability Matrix

EVALUATION STEP 1

Technical Acceptability Checklist RFP D12PS00041 - Attachment 2

Minimum Requirements for Technical Acceptability

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY CHECKLIST

Notice: The Offeror shall place section titles and page numbers where specific responses can be located for each minimum requirement. If responses are not noted on this list, it will be assumed that the Offeror’s proposal provides no response for the minimum requirement. It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify buried evidence that the Offeror meets Minimum Requirements for Technical Acceptability in the Offeror’s proposal. An unsupported claim for meeting the Minimum Requirements for Technical Acceptability will be considered as a failure to meet that requirement and the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed non-responsive and removed from further consideration for award.

Instructions: The Technical Acceptability Checklist has been provided as an editable document to enable Offerors to insert additional rows where multiple sections provide evidence of having met the Minimum Requirement.

Instructions: The minimum requirement is in the left hand column. Where additional sections refer to the same minimum requirement, place “see above” to indicate that rows below a requirement refer to the topic defined immediately above. Place the Technical Volume Section name in the center column titled “Offeror’s Proposal Section” Use a new row for each section and subsection listed. In the right-hand column titled “Page(s),” list the section pages where pertinent supporting information is located.

Complete the following table to ensure all Minimum Requirements for Technical Acceptability align to a proposal section and page number.

Offeror Name:

a) Offeror has proposed a FISMA Moderate or higher CECS solution.

b) The solution shall be capable of exporting all data into a recognized open data format upon termination of service.

c) Offeror has proposed a solution in which data at rest resides in the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands

d) Firm has relevant experience in implementing a project (or projects) of similar size and scope?

e) Offeror demonstrates a proven service delivery model

f) Offeror has proposed a suite of solutions that utilizes DOI’s Enterprise Active Directory for authentication and authorization

g) Offeror has proposed a solution that supports offline access to email

h) Offeror must provide Journaling Capability IAW the SOO

i) Offeror has completed the Schedule of Prices spreadsheet (Attachment 1) using the Government provided spreadsheet file in its entirety.

j) The Offeror has proposed a solution that employs a Government Community or Private Cloud hosting environment

* for Government Use Only

Failure to comply with ANY of the above minimum technically acceptability requirements will result in a technically unacceptable submission and rejection of the proposal. Thus, no further evaluation of the offeror’s submission will be conducted.

Revised 2/22/12 with Amendment 0003