Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf
PDF 104 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Wireless Network Deployment at SOCNORTH
- Solicitation number
- H9229526QB009
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This document is Section M of a federal solicitation containing evaluation factors for a comparative evaluation to select a contractor for an enterprise wireless networking project.
Factor 1: Technical Factors contains four subfactors that must meet minimum acceptability standards. Subfactor 1.1 requires verifiable proof of active status on the NSA's Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) Approved Trusted Integrator list at proposal submission, with failure to provide proof resulting in immediate rejection. Subfactor 1.2 mandates explicit certification that all assigned personnel hold required active security clearances at contract award—Secret clearance for general on-site personnel and Top Secret (TS) clearance for personnel executing configuration tasks—with the government declining to sponsor clearances. Subfactor 1.3 requires a detailed technical approach demonstrating feasible, compliant methodology for all Performance Work Statement (PWS) tasks: CLIN 0001 (Study & Design) involving access point surveys and design document creation; CLIN 0002 (Procurement & Install) covering CAT6A shielded plenum cabling deployment, equipment installation, and 802.1x network access control/wireless intrusion detection configuration; and CLIN 0003 (Testing & Validation) verifying RF coverage and CSfC/STIG compliance. Subfactor 1.4 requires a detailed milestone schedule demonstrating full project completion, including final documentation delivery (CLIN 0004), within 120 calendar days of contract award, accounting for government review windows of approximately 5 business days for deliverables.
Factor 2: Past Performance requires at least two reference projects completed within the last three years demonstrating similar size, scope (enterprise wireless), and complexity (CSfC/DoD environments) with satisfactory or better performance ratings to achieve an Acceptable rating. Offerors without relevant past performance records receive a "Neutral" rating, treated as Acceptable for lowest-price-technically-acceptable (LPTA) purposes. Factor 3: Price will not be technically rated but evaluated for completeness, balance, and reasonableness. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest total proposed price for all CLINs (including fixed-price for CLIN 0001 and not-to-exceed fixed-price for CLINs 0002 and 0003). Price evaluation requires verification that all CLINs are priced, all travel costs are included, and a detailed Bill of Materials is provided for CLIN 0002. Proposed pricing must be realistic and reasonable; extremely low pricing suggesting lack of technical understanding may be deemed a performance risk.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| BLDG 30 1st Floor.pdf | ||
| BLDG 30 2nd Floor.pdf | ||
| Appendix 1_On-Hand Equipment.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Apendix 3_DD254_WLAN_SOCNORTH_vendor name.pdf | ||
| Revised PWS Wireless LAN - 29 June.pdf | ||
| Section L Instruction to Offerors (2).pdf | ||
| Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| Appendix 2_SOCNORTH Visitor Map Guide.pptx | PPTX presentation | |
| Section L Instruction to Offerors.pdf | ||
| Section M Evaluation Factors for Award (LPTA).pdf | ||
| Revised PWS Wireless LAN.pdf |
Show all 12
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
Section M: Evaluation Factors
Comparative Evaluation
Per RFO PART 12.201-1 (d) evaluation will be conducted by comparative evaluation to select the contractor that is best suited and provides the best value considering the evaluation factors in this solicitation. This solicitation is not stating nor required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and/or sub factor.
Technical: Technical is the factual documentation of the firm’s ability to meet the specifications.
Factor 1: Technical Factors
To be rated as Technically Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must meet or exceed the following minimum standards across all subfactors:
Subfactor Standard for Acceptability
Subfactor 1.1:NSA CSfC Status
The offeror (or their designated subcontractor) must provide verifiable proof of active status on the NSA's CSfC Approved Trusted Integrator list. Failure to provide this proof at the time of proposal submission will result in an immediate rating of Unacceptable.
Subfactor 1.2:Security Clearances
The offeror must explicitly certify that all personnel assigned to the project hold the required active clearances at the time of award: • Secret: Required for all general on-site personnel.• Top Secret (TS): Required for all personnel executing configuration tasks.The government will not sponsor clearances for this effort.
Subfactor 1.3:Technical Approach
The proposal must demonstrate a feasible, compliant, and detailed methodology to execute all tasks in the PWS: • CLIN 0001 (Study & Design): A viable plan for AP-on-a-stick surveys and HLD/LLD creation.• CLIN 0002 (Procurement & Install): A plan for deploying CAT6A shielded plenum cabling, installing equipment, and configuring 802.1x NAC/WIDS.• CLIN 0003 (Testing & Validation): A plan verifying RF coverage and full compliance with STIGs and CSfC standards.
Subfactor 1.4:Project Schedule
The offeror must submit a detailed milestone schedule showing full project completion, including final documentation delivery (CLIN 0004), within 120 calendar days or less from the date of contract award. The schedule must account for logical government review windows (e.g., 5 business days for deliverables).
Factor 2: Past Performance
Past Performance is the factual documentation or narrative of a firm’s experience, qualifications, and capability, along with providing three examples of their firm’s most recent projects within the past five years of similar size scope and location to this project.
Rating Description
Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Requires at least two (2) reference projects completed within the last three (3) years of similar size, scope (enterprise wireless), and complexity (CSfC/DoD environments) with satisfactory or better performance.
Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a rating of "Neutral," which is treated as "Acceptable" for LPTA purposes.
Factor 3: Price
Price will not be rated technically, but will be evaluated for completeness, balance, and reasonableness.
• Award Criteria: Among those proposals determined to be "Technically Acceptable" under Factors 1 and 2, the contract will be awarded to the offeror with the lowest total proposed Price (including the FFP for CLIN 0001 and the NTE FFP for CLINs 0002 and 0003).
• Completeness: The government will verify that the offeror has priced all CLINs, included all travel costs within those CLINs, and provided a detailed Bill of Materials (BOM) for CLIN 0002.
• Reasonableness: Proposed pricing must be realistic, fair, and reasonable for the scope of work described in the PWS. Extremely low pricing that indicates a lack of technical understanding may be deemed a performance risk.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .