Enclosure 4 - Evaluation Criteria.docx.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 4-B148-P-00218-00
- Issued by
-
Department of Energy Office of Science
About this file
This document is an Enclosure containing the Evaluation Criteria for RFP No. 4-B148-P-00218-00 issued by Argonne National Laboratory. The RFP seeks to establish an ATO Ready Public Cloud Enclave that aligns with NIST 800-53, FedRAMP Moderate, and FISMA compliance standards.
The key objectives of the project are to develop a secure cloud environment, produce comprehensive ATO documentation, enable effective cloud operations and training for Argonne personnel, integrate existing cybersecurity solutions, support Argonne's business goals, provide project management, guide through the ATO process, and position CELS as a secure cloud broker with chargeback billing capabilities. The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Cost Proposal, and the Best Value/Trade-off method will be used to evaluate proposals. The evaluation criteria include Technical Approach, Depth of Qualified Personnel, Experience in Performing Similar Work, Timely Response, and Sample Deliverables. Proposal Risk will also be considered. The ATO documentation is due within 90 days of contract award, and the full implementation and validation of the secure cloud enclave is due within 90 days as well.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2A - Appendix A-Fixed Price-10-DEC-2021.PDF | ||
| 2 - Draft FP Contract.doc | DOC document | |
| Enclosure 6 - OCI Disclosure.doc | DOC document | |
| Enclosure 1 (Read First) - RFP and Instructions.docx.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2B - Appendix B - SOW 6-1-24.docx.docx | DOCX document | |
| Enclosure 5 - ANL-70B (Long).doc | DOC document | |
| 2C - Appendix D8-12-DEC-2023.PDF | ||
| 2D - Special Cl-Progress Pmts-02-SEP-2015.PDF | ||
| Enclosure 3 - Contract Pricing Proposal Form.docx.docx | DOCX document |
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
RFP No. 4-B148-P-00218-00
ENCLOSURE NO. 4
EVALUATION CRITERIA
I. Evaluation
Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Argonne National Laboratory approved Procurement Rules utilizing the Best Value/Trade-off methodology based on the Evaluation Criteria set forth below.
II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts
The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Cost Proposal. While the Cost Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, it will be a significant part of the Laboratory’s selection decision. The Laboratory shall make a selection for award based on the principles of best value/trade-off. The best value/trade-off methodology is designed to select the proposal with the highest technical rating and lowest evaluated price. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed price if the perceived technical advantages of a higher evaluated proposed price proposal merit the additional higher proposed price.
The Technical Proposal will be adjectivally scored as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable in accordance with the criteria described below.
III. Business/Management Proposal
Your Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis determined by your satisfactory inclusion of the factors described in Enclosure 1. Each factor must be graded “Pass” in order for your proposal to advance to the Technical Evaluation stage.
IV. Technical Evaluation Criteria
| The Laboratory will use the technical evaluation criteria enumerated below to evaluate the merit of the Technical Proposals and will utilize the following “relative importance” hierarchy during the evaluation process: technical factors are listed in descending order of importance. | |
| A. | Technical Approach |
Your overall technical approach will be evaluated on its comprehensiveness, feasibility, and alignment with the SOW and RFP requirements and desired outcomes. The ability to present a clear, detailed, and practical plan to meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP will be a significant factor in the evaluation process. Individual technical factors will be evaluated as follows:
| 1. | Project Planning and Management: Your approach will be evaluated based on its ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions. |
| 2. | Design and Development: Your approach will be evaluated based on its ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions, including compliance with all listed standards and utilization of IaC to manage configurations, policies, and compliance monitoring. |
| 3. | Compliance and Security: Your plan to ensure all security and compliance requirements are met will be evaluated based on its ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions. |
| 4. | Training and Knowledge Transfer: Your strategy for educating and training Argonne personnel on the new cloud solutions will be evaluated for efficiency, thoroughness, perceived effectiveness, and ability to meet or exceed the requirements stated in the SOW and RFP Instructions. |
| 5. | Integration and Feasibility Assessment: Your approach will be evaluated based on perceived ability to maximize resource use and compatibility, and otherwise meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions. |
| 6. | Financial Operations and Chargeback Capabilities: Your approach to designing and implementing financial operations (FinOps) solutions, including chargeback billing and cost management, will be evaluated based on its ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions. |
B. Depth of Qualified Personnel
Your proposal will be evaluated based on your perceived ability to provide strong personnel that meets or exceeds the requirements of the SOW and RFP Instructions.
C. Experience in Performing Similar Work
This will be evaluated based on amount, relevance, and perceived quality of experience performing similar work, track record in meeting compliance standards, alignment of past projects to the needs of this SOW & RFP Instructions, and perceived ability to deliver on past requirements for federal government entities and/or other highly regulated environments. References will also be contacted and considered in the evaluation.
D. Timely Response
Response time in completing this requirement is critical to the Laboratory’s needs and will be an important area of evaluation. Your proposal will be evaluated based on perceived ability to deliver high quality work fulfilling the requirements of the SOW in a timely fashion.
E. Sample Deliverables
Sample deliverables will be evaluated based on their relevance, quality, clarity, and alignment with the objectives and requirements outlined in the RFP. The samples should reflect your firm’s ability to deliver high-quality, comprehensive, and compliant documentation that supports the successful execution of the project.
V. Proposal Risk
Proposal Risk shall be considered with respect to all other factors. Evaluation of Proposal Risk includes consideration of: offeror’s demonstration of understanding of scope; risk of successful performance of the contract; and ability and commitment to service. Proposal Risk will be rated Low, Moderate, or High.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .