Atch 2 - Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology Amend 0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA9101259L4H2
About this file
The file is a Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology document for an Other Transaction Prototype (OTP) project at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee. The solicitation seeks up to two vendors to design and install a new process air heater and connections for Leg 4 and H2 Heater, with the potential for a follow-on production agreement for the most successful prototype. The evaluation methodology details a comprehensive scoring system across multiple factors, including vendor risk mitigation, past performance, subcontracting plans, technical approach, data rights, and prototype schedule.
Key evaluation criteria include assessing vendor capabilities through a 5-point scoring system that examines past performance, subcontractor expertise, in-house execution plans, risk management, and prototype delivery timelines. Vendors must demonstrate relevant experience, provide detailed subcontracting plans, and show capability in business process implementation. Special requirements include having a current NIST SP 800-171 assessment in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and meeting statutory criteria under 10 U.S.C. 4022. The solicitation is issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Test Center, with the Agreements Officer being Haley M. K. Smith.
View the file
Other files
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
Mandator Statutory Criteria
| Mandatory Statutory Evaluation Criteria Table | |
| Rating | Description |
| Pass | Vendor provided substantiating documentation that supports at least one-of-the-three criteria permitted for appropriate use of the statutory authority 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1)(A)-(C) |
| Fail | Vendor did not provide substantiating documentation that supports at least one-of-the-three criteria permitted for appropriate use of the statutory authority 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1)(A)-(C) |
NOTE 1: Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) = An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards (CAS) prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. §3014). For the purpose of this Guide, the phrase “the solicitation of sources” refers to the initial agreement solicitation only. A nontraditional defense contractor is considered a nontraditional defense contractor for the duration of the prototype project/agreement’s period of performance, or for any in-scope work modified under the same agreement (Other Transactions Guide, July 2023, Version 2.0).
NOTE 2: Non-profit research institution is validated by reviewing the vendor’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which is required by the Internal Revenue Service.
| NOTE 3: “Significant extent” and “significant participants” may be defined by the vendor providing rationale to one or more of the following variables: | |
| a. | Has a significant role / level of involvement in the development, production, or delivery of a product or service. |
| b. | Has a significant impact on the design, development, or production of the product or service. |
| c. | Has significant level of material interest in the success of the product or service. |
| d. | Has significant level of company's financial interest in the success of the product or service. |
| e. | Has significant level of control over the development, production, or delivery of the product or service. |
| f. | Other significant rationale provided by the vendor. |
NOTE 4: Failure to provide supporting documentation will eliminate a company from being considered for an award and the proposal will not be evaluated further.
Factor 1-Vendor RM - Sub 1
| Factor 1: Subfactor 1 – Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | High Expectation: The vendor presents compelling evidence of their ability to deliver successful outcomes in projects that closely mirror the current requirements, demonstrating a high degree of confidence in their capabilities. |
Recency: One or both examples provided are ongoing or have been completed within the past 3 years.
Relevancy: The example(s) clearly demonstrate the vendor's experience in both structuring and implementing complex business processes AND executing the work. The provided example(s) closely align with the current project in terms of technical nature, size, complexity, and overall objectives, indicating a strong understanding of the requirements and the ability to deliver comparable solutions.
The vendor provides clear and concise details about their role, methodologies used, challenges addressed, and quantifiable, successful outcomes achieved in each example.
4 Reasonable Expectation: The vendor demonstrates relevant experience, but with potential limitations that may require further consideration:
Recency: One or both examples provided are ongoing or have been completed within the past 5 years.
Relevancy: The example(s) demonstrate the vendor's experience in both business process implementation and successful execution. At least one example demonstrates a similar alignment with the current project in terms of technical nature, size, complexity, and overall objectives. The vendor provides sufficient details about their role, methodologies, challenges, and outcomes, but some aspects may require clarification or further elaboration.
| 3 | Neutral Expectation: No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the vendor's performance record is so spars that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor. |
| 2 | Low Expectation: The vendor's submission raises concerns about their ability to successfully perform the required effort: |
Recency: One or both examples are less recent (5-7 years old).
Relevancy: Example(s) demonstrate limited experience in either business process implementation or execution, or the example(s) are not directly applicable to the current project's requirements.
Example(s) demonstrate a weak connection to the current project's specific needs and objectives.
Limited details are provided about the vendor's role, methodologies, challenges, and outcomes in the examples.
1 No Expectation: The vendor fails to demonstrate relevant or recent experience, and the provided examples show no clear alignment with the current project:
Recency/Relevancy: The vendor provides no examples, irrelevant examples, inadequate examples (e.g., showcasing unsuccessful outcomes), or outdated examples (over five years old).
| o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Assigned Weight & Calculation |
| § Assigned Weight: Subfactor 1 shall have a 75% weight assigned. |
| § Calculation: Subfactor 1 score * .75 = Subfactor 1 Weighted Score |
| o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Definitions: |
| § Recent: |
| · Contract or agreement within the last five (5) years from Request for Prototype Proposal issue date. |
| § Relevant: Example contract(s) / agreements(s) provided shall demonstrate vendor's capabilities in business process structuring and project execution that are similar in technical nature, size, and complexity that correlates to this project's Statement of Objectives (Atch 1) and Statement of Objectives Performance Parameters (Atch 2). |
· Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved
· Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).
· Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.
Example contract(s) / agreements(s) provided shall demonstrate vendor's capabilities in both business process structuring and proof of concept design and execution that are similar in technical nature, size, and complexity that correlates to this project's Statement of Objectives Performance Parameters (Atch 1) and Statement of Objectives (Atch 2).
| i. | Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved | |
| ii. | Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration). | |
| iii. | Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required. | |
| Factor 1 Final Score = (Subfactor 1 Score * 0.75) + (Subfactor 2 Score * 0.25) |
Fact 1-Vendor RM - Sub 2
| Factor 1: Subfactor 2 – Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | 15.01% or greater above average SPRS Supplier Risk Score |
| 4 | 5.01% to 15.00% above average SPRS Supplier Risk Score |
| 3 | -5.00% to 5.00% above/below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score |
| 2 | -5.01% to -15.00% below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score |
| 1 | -15.01% or less - below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score |
| o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Assigned Weight & Calculation |
| § Assigned Weight: Subfactor 2 shall have a 25% weight assigned. |
| § Calculation: Subfactor 2 score * .25 = Subfactor 2 Weighted Score |
| o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Definition |
| § Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score: Provides the Agreements Officer a score for the overall assessment of Agreements Officers can identify “riskier” suppliers and assess the likelihood of the non-fulfillment of terms of agreement, unsuccessful performance, or delivery delays. |
| SPRS Supplier Risk Score uses 10 factors of performance information to calculate Supplier Risk Scores. These factors are individually weighted (based on age and relative importance) and summed to produce a numerical and color score for every company which has performance data. |
| https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/faqs.htm |
| https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf |
| https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/report-supplierrisk.htm |
https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdfhttps://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/report-supplierrisk.htmhttps://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/faqs.htm Factor 2-Sub1-Prototype
| Factor 2: Subfactor 1– Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | Exceptional Approach (All Criteria Met Exceedingly Well): |
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor meticulously identifies each subcontractor by name and CAGE code and provides a detailed explanation of their specific expertise, highlighting a perfect alignment with the project's unique demands.
* Evidence: The plan provides compelling and quantifiable evidence (e.g., performance metrics from nearly identical projects, strong customer testimonials) of the subcontractor's ability not just to meet, but to exceed performance standards.
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a detailed approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including clear communication channels, quality control measures, and specific milestones integrated into the overall project schedule.
* Risk Mitigation: The vendor anticipates potential risks and outlines robust, specific, and proactive mitigation strategies tailored to the project's complexities.
Prime In-House Execution Plan
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides explicit and detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions throughout the project lifecycle. They clearly demonstrate how those capabilities perfectly align with the project's unique needs.
* Evidence: The plan offers concrete examples and quantifiable data (e.g., successful project metrics from similar projects, staff credentials and certifications) that strongly substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.
* Advantages: The vendor clearly articulates the unique advantages of in-house execution for this specific project, going beyond general statements.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor demonstrates a robust, well-defined system for continuous improvement, including how lessons learned will be captured and implemented.
4 Thorough Approach (All Criteria Met Well):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor clearly identifies subcontractors by name and CAGE code. They provide a clear explanation of each subcontractor's expertise and experience relevant to the assigned functions.
* Evidence: The plan provides solid evidence (e.g., past project experience, client references) of the subcontractor's ability to meet performance standards and adhere to the proposed schedule.
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a well-defined approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including communication plans and quality control measures.
* Risk Mitigation: The vendor acknowledges potential risks and outlines clear mitigation strategies.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions.
* Evidence: The plan offers examples and demonstrable experience that substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.
* Advantages: The vendor outlines the advantages of in-house execution for the project.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor expresses a clear commitment to continuous improvement and outlines their approach.
3 Adequate Approach (Some Criteria Met, Some Minor Weaknesses):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor identifies subcontractors and provides a general description of their experience and expertise, but the relevance to the specific project may not be as strong.
* Evidence: The plan offers some evidence that subcontractors can perform the required functions, but the evidence may not be directly comparable to the current project or as convincing.
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan outlines a basic approach for managing subcontractor performance but may lack detail in key areas like communication or quality control.
* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is addressed generally but may lack specificity.
Prime In-House Execution:
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides a general overview of their internal capabilities and available resources, but may lack specificity.
* Evidence: The plan offers some examples and experience to support their ability to execute the project, but the evidence may not be entirely convincing or directly relevant.
* Advantages: Advantages of in-house execution are vaguely addressed.
* Continuous Improvement: Plans for continuous improvement are not clearly defined.
2 Does Not Demonstrate Adequate Approach (Significant Weaknesses, Missing Information):
Subcontracting Plan:
*Identification or Expertise: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding subcontractor expertise and experience. Subcontractor identification may be incomplete (missing CAGE codes, etc.).
*Evidence: The provided evidence is weak, irrelevant, or incomplete, raising concerns about the subcontractor's ability to meet performance standards or the proposed schedule.
* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan for ensuring subcontractor performance is incomplete or lacks key elements, raising concerns about the vendor's ability to manage subcontractors effectively.
* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is either absent or superficial.
Prime In-House Execution:
* Details & Alignment: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding internal expertise, resources, or processes.
* Evidence: The provided evidence is weak, irrelevant, or raises doubts about the vendor's capacity to handle the project in-house.
* Advantages: The plan fails to adequately justify the choice of in-house execution.
* Continuous Improvement: The plan does not adequately address continuous improvement.
1 Plan Does Not Meet Requirement (Unacceptable, Major Gaps):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification or Expertise: The vendor fails to adequately identify subcontractors or provide sufficient information about their qualifications.
* Evidence: The plan lacks evidence of the subcontractor's ability to perform the required functions.
* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan does not outline a clear approach for managing subcontractor performance.
* Risk Mitigation: The plan demonstrates a lack of understanding or consideration of potential risks associated with subcontracting.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides inadequate or no information about their internal capabilities, resources, or processes.
* Evidence: The plan fails to demonstrate the vendor's ability to execute the project in-house.
* Advantages: The plan lacks justification for the in-house approach and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the project's needs.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor did not address continuous improvement..
Factor 2-Sub-2-Production
| Factor 2: Subfactor 2 – Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | Exceptional Approach (All Criteria Met Exceedingly Well): |
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor meticulously identifies each required subcontracted function and provides a detailed explanation of the specific expertise required, highlighting a perfect alignment with the project's unique demands.
* Evidence: The plan provides compelling and quantifiable evidence (e.g., performance metrics from nearly identical projects, strong customer testimonials) of how the contractor will ensure the subcontractor(s)' ability not just to meet, but to exceed performance standards
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a detailed approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including clear communication channels, quality control measures, and specific milestones integrated into the overall project schedule.
* Risk Mitigation: The vendor anticipates potential risks and outlines robust, specific, and proactive mitigation strategies tailored to the project's complexities.
Prime In-House Execution Plan:
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides explicit and detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions throughout the project lifecycle. They clearly demonstrate how those capabilities perfectly align with the project's unique needs.
* Evidence: The plan offers concrete examples and quantifiable data (e.g., successful project metrics from similar projects, staff credentials and certifications) that strongly substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.
* Advantages: The vendor clearly articulates the unique advantages of in-house execution for this specific project, going beyond general statements.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor demonstrates a robust, well-defined system for continuous improvement, including how lessons learned will be captured and implemented.
4 Thorough Approach (All Criteria Met Well):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor clearly identifies the required subcontracted functions. They provide a clear explanation of the expertise and experience relevant to the assigned functions.
* Evidence: The plan provides solid evidence of the contractor's understanding of the importance of the subcontractor(s)' ability to meet performance standards and adhere to the proposed schedule.
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan includes a well-defined approach for ensuring subcontractor performance, including communication plans and quality control measures.
* Risk Mitigation: The vendor acknowledges potential risks and outlines clear mitigation strategies.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides detailed information about their internal capabilities and resources dedicated to executing the named functions.
* Evidence: The plan offers examples and demonstrable experience that substantiate the vendor's ability to achieve project objectives within the defined timeline.
* Advantages: The vendor outlines the advantages of in-house execution for the project.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor expresses a clear commitment to continuous improvement and outlines their approach.
3 Adequate Approach (Some Criteria Met, Some Minor Weaknesses):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification & Expertise: The vendor identifies subcontractor functions and provides a general description of the required experience and expertise, but the relevance to the specific project may not be as strong.
* Evidence: The plan offers some evidence that subcontractors can perform the required functions, but the evidence may not be directly comparable to the current project or as convincing.
* Plan & Schedule Integration: The plan outlines a basic approach for managing subcontractor performance but may lack detail in key areas like communication or quality control.
* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is addressed generally but may lack specificity.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides a general overview of their internal capabilities and available resources, but may lack specificity.
* Evidence: The plan offers some examples and experience to support their ability to execute the project, but the evidence may not be entirely convincing or directly relevant.
* Advantages: Advantages of in-house execution are vaguely addressed.
* Continuous Improvement: Plans for continuous improvement are not clearly defined.
2 Does Not Demonstrate Adequate Approach (Significant Weaknesses, Missing Information):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identification or Expertise: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding required subcontractor expertise and experience.
* Evidence: The specific subcontractor qualifications listed as necessary are weak, irrelevant, or incomplete, raising concerns about the contractor's plan to assure the subcontractor(s)' capability to meet performance standards or the proposed schedule.
* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan for ensuring subcontractor performance is incomplete or lacks key elements, raising concerns about the vendor's ability to manage subcontractors effectively.
* Risk Mitigation: Risk mitigation is either absent or superficial.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor's plan lacks sufficient detail regarding internal expertise, resources, or processes.
* Evidence: The provided evidence is weak, irrelevant, or raises doubts about the vendor's capacity to handle the project in-house.
* Advantages: The plan fails to adequately justify the choice of in-house execution.
* Continuous Improvement: The plan does not adequately address continuous improvement.
1 Plan Does Not Meet Requirement (Unacceptable, Major Gaps):
Subcontracting Plan:
* Identify or Demonstrate Expertise: The vendor fails to adequately identify subcontractors functions or provide sufficient information about the required qualifications.
* Evidence: The plan lacks evidence of the required subcontractor functions.
* Plan & Integration Schedule: The plan does not outline a clear approach for managing subcontractor performance.
* Risk Mitigation: The plan demonstrates a lack of understanding or consideration of potential risks associated with subcontracting.
Prime In-House Execution
* Details & Alignment: The vendor provides inadequate or no information about their internal capabilities, resources, or processes.
* Evidence: The plan fails to demonstrate the vendor's ability to execute the project in-house.
* Advantages: The plan lacks justification for the in-house approach and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the project's needs.
* Continuous Improvement: The vendor did not address continuous improvement..
Factor2-Sub 3-Tech Approach
| Factor 2: Subfactor 3 - Techncial Approach Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | Exceptional Approach (Comprehensive, Strategic, Scalable, and Well-Justified): |
Risk Management Plan:
The narrative describes the methodology for risk management in detail, including steps involved, the tools and techniques used, and the rationale behind the chosen approach. The narrative presents a prioritized list of the top risks, based on their likelihood and impact. The narrative provides clear and well-reasoned explanation of the chosen response strategies, considering cost, effectiveness, and feasibility. There are no contradictions or discrepancies within the risk management plan. The plans has enabled the vendor to anticipate and prevent risk events, minimizing disruptions and improving outcomes.
tc={512BA7DD-2035-40C3-8B83-8577E645A997}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
@KREPP, PHILLIP G CTR USAF AFMC AEDC/PMD @MILLER, DOUGLAS R CTR USAF AFMC AEDC/TDX @HOLCOMB, LAUREN E CIV USAF AFMC AEDC/PMD I’ve updated the Technical Approach criteria for the Demolition Plan ( 2 variables) and Risk Management Plan (1 variable). We are rating 5,3,1 on these. Please review and make sure these align appropriately. @SMITH, HALEY M CIV USAF AFMC AFTC/PZI Please redirect if necessary. 3 Adequate Approach (Generally Sound, But Lacks Specificity, Depth, or Robustness in Scalability):
Risk Management Plan: The narrative provides the methodology of risk management but is lacking in detail. The narrative provides reasoning behind strategies, but they are lacking detail or unclear. There are some contradictions or discrepancies withing the narrative. The plan allows the vendor to anticipate and prevent some of the risk events.
1 Approach Does Not Meet Requirement (Unacceptable, Major Deficiencies, No Clear Plan, or Inability to Meet Staffing Demands): Risk Management Plan: The narrative does not provide the methodology of risk management. The narrative does not support strategies with sound reasoning. There are several contradictions or discrepancies throughout the narrative. The plan does not allow the vendor to anticipate or prevent risk events.
@KREPP, PHILLIP G CTR USAF AFMC AEDC/PMD @MILLER, DOUGLAS R CTR USAF AFMC AEDC/TDX @HOLCOMB, LAUREN E CIV USAF AFMC AEDC/PMD I’ve updated the Technical Approach criteria for the Demolition Plan ( 2 variables) and Risk Management Plan (1 variable). We are rating 5,3,1 on these. Please review and make sure these align appropriately. @SMITH, HALEY M CIV USAF AFMC AFTC/PZI Please redirect if necessary.
Factor 2-Sub 4
| Factor 2: Subfactor 4 – Data Rights to Conceptual Design Proof of Concept Scoring Matrix | |
| SCORE | DESCRIPTION |
| 5 | Vendor Provides Unlimited Government Use Rights |
| 1 | Vendor Provides Limited Government Use Rights |
Factor 2-Sub 5
| Factor 2: Subfactor 5 – Prototype Schedule Scoring Matrix | |
| Score | Description |
| 5 | Vendor proposing the shortest delivery timeframe to deliver the prototype. |
tc={8285CB86-1CE1-4323-BB29-9E291AB90981}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
Is the shortest schedule really inherently the best schedule? I would think we would want to base the scoring on the quality of the schedule rather than the duration.
| 4 | Vendor proposing the second shortest delivery timeframe to deliver the prototype. |
| 3 | Vendor proposing the third shortest delivery timeframe to deliver the prototype. |
| 2 | Vendor proposing the fourth shortest delivery timeframe to deliver the prototype. |
| 1 | Vendors proposing fifth shortest timeframe, and below, to deliver prototype. |
| For Example, points would be awarded as follows: |
| Vendor B: 5 points (shortest timeframe) |
| Vendor D: 4 points (second shortest) |
| Vendor E: 3 points (third shortest) |
| Vendor A: 2 points (fourth shortest) |
| Vendor C: 1 point (all remaining vendors) |
Is the shortest schedule really inherently the best schedule? I would think we would want to base the scoring on the quality of the schedule rather than the duration.
Factor 1 & 2 Scoring Matrix
| Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation | Factor 2: Business Process | Score 1-5 | |||
| Factor 1 Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance | Score 1-5 | Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan: | |||
| Total Score: | Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan: | ||||
| Subfactor 3: Technical Approach | |||||
| Factor 1 Subfactor 2: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score: | |||||
| Average SPRS Score: | Score 1-5 | Subfactor 4: Prototype Schedule | |||
| Score 5 = 15.01% or greater above average SPRS Supplier Risk Score | Factor 2 Total Score: | 0 | |||
| Score 4 = 5.01% to 15.00% above average SPRS Supplier Risk Score | ***See Factor 2-Business Process Tabs*** | ||||
| Score 3 = -5.00% to 5.00% above/below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score | |||||
| Score 2 = -5.01% to -15.00% below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score | |||||
| Score 1 = -15.01% or less - below average SPRS Supplier Risk Score | |||||
| Total Score: |
| Factor 1 Subfactor 2 - SPRS Percent Calculation | |
| SPRS Average Supplier Risk Score Pulled from PIEE After Receipt of Proposal: | |
| Vendor SPRS Supplier Risk Score - Input Score Here | |
| Vendor Score Above / Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average | 0 |
| Vendor Score % Above / Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average | ERROR:#DIV/0! |
| Factor 1 Final Score = (Subfactor 1 Score * 0.75) + (Subfactor 2 Score * 0.25) | 0.00 |
| ***See Factor 1 - Vendor Risk Mitigation Tab*** |
Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2): 0.00
Factor 3 - Price
| Price Related to Value Calculation |
| Value Rating of Highest Rated Solution (1-25) |
Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2):
Value Rating of Next Highest Rated Solution (1-25) Vendor Total Evaluation Score (Factor 1 + Factor 2):
Highest rated solution is considered to be "X%" better than next highest rated solution ERROR:#DIV/0! "X%"= (Highest Value Rated Solution - Next Highest Value Rated Solution) / Next Highest Value Rated Solution
| Prototype Price of Highest Rated Solution | ||
| Prototype Price of Next Highest Rated Solution | ||
| Highest value rated solution price is "X%" more/less compared to the next highest rated solution | ERROR:#DIV/0! | "X%"=(Price of Highest Rated Solution - Price of Next Highest Rated Solution) / Prototype Price of Next Highest Rated Solution |
*The Government will justify paying "X%" more / less for the solution that is considered to be "X" better than the next best solution.
Prototype MS
| Prototype Award: Payable Milestones (MS) | |||||||
| TITLE: Leg 4 and H2 Heater CUSTOMER: AEDC AO: Haley M. K. Smith | |||||||
| MS | Option | Description | Quantity | ||||
| (Each) | Unit | ||||||
| Price | Total Milestone Price | Proposed Delivery | Funded By ACRN | Funding Amount | |||
| 1 | N/A | Kickoff Meeting | 1 | TBD | TBD | ||
| 2 | N/A | Business Process | 1 | TBD | TBD | ||
| 3 | N/A | Proof of Concept - Conceptual Design | 1 | TBD | TBD | ||
| Total Evaluated Price | $ - 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .