Attachment 17 Draft 96 CTG Self-Scoring Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 96 CTG DRAFT FOPR Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2486-20-F-DRAFT
About this file
Draft self-scoring matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Self Score Sheet
| TMAS 2 96 CTG |
| SOLICITATION # FA2486-20-F-1001 |
| ATTACHMENT 17 |
| DRAFT SELF-SCORING MATRIX |
| OFFEROR NAME: [FILL IN OFFEROR NAME HERE] |
| Note: See Attachment 05, Evaluation Criteria, for Additional Information |
| Note: Offerors only fill in the orange shaded blocks throughout |
| Eval Criteria Section | Category | Max Count | Offeror's Position/Location Total | Points Per Position/ Location (1,000 Points/Max Count) | Weight Factor | Max. Possible Points | Offeror's Self-Score | Offeror's Weighted Self-Score |
| 3.1 | General | |||||||
| 3.1.1 | Number of total positions (max CME count) | 510 | 1.96 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1.2 | Number of geographically separated work locations supported with at least 10 CMEs each (max location count) | 7 | 142.86 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1.3 | Number of incumbent positions transitioned in a 90 day span | 510 | 1.96 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1.4 | Number of non-incumbent Cybersecurity Engineering Support positions hired in a 30 day span | 20 | 50.00 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1.5 | Number of personnel supporting programs requiring an adjudicated, current non-critical sensitive investigation (secret) / Tier 3 Investigation or above (max positions) | 510 | 1.96 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1.6 | Financial stability - ability to cover up to three months of base year cost, truncate decimals--e.g. enter 22.6 percent as "22" | 25 | 40.00 | 3 | 3,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 3.2 | Technical | |||||||
| 3.2.1 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing direct technical engineering support on DoD RDT&E C4ISR Systems = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.2 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing C4ISR/Cyber systems support in aircraft and inter-connected system-of-systems (SoS) across the full Battlespace Arena and Kill-Chain. = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 5 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.3 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing testing for ground/airborne sensors and electronic warfare (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.4 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.5 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity on Aircraft (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.6 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity/C4ISR testing through the entire lifecycle of a system (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.7 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity compliance and resiliency (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.8 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity compliance and penetration testing (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2.9 | Number of Contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing hardware and software Mission Planning Environment Tests for aircraft (max count = 5) | 5 | 200.00 | 4 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 |
| Eval Criteria Section | Category | 1000 Points | 750 Points | 500 Points | 0 Points | -500 Points | -1000 Points | Weight Factor | Max. Possible Points | Offeror's Self-Score |
| 3.3 | DSS Vunerability Rating | |||||||||
| 3.3.1 | Most recent DSS vulnerability assessment | Superior | Commendable | Satisfactory | No Current Rating Available | Marginal | Unsatisfactory | 1 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| Eval Criteria Section | Category | Percentage of CPAR Ratings (Cannot Exceed 100.00% in Total) | Points for Each Rating | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self-Score | Offeror's Weighted Self-Score |
| 3.4 | Work Sample CPAR Ratings | ||||||
| 3.4.1 | CPAR categories rated "exceptional" over last 5 years | 85.00% | 1,000 | 18 | 18,000 | 850 | 15,300 |
| 3.4.2 | CPAR categories rated "very good" over last 5 years | 10.00% | 900 | 18 | 16,200 | 90 | 1,620 |
| 3.4.3 | CPAR categories rated "satisfactory" over last 5 years | 5.00% | 800 | 18 | 14,400 | 40 | 720 |
| 3.4.4 | CPAR categories rated "marginal" over last 5 years | (250) | 18 | (4,500) | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.4.5 | CPAR categories rated "unsatisfactory" over last 5 years | (1,000) | 18 | (18,000) | 0 | 0 |
Totals 100.00% 18,000 980 17,640
| Maximum Total Score | 84,000 |
| Offeror's Total Self-Score | 18,640 |
File details come from the government source that posted it.