Section M Evaluation Factors for Award (LPTA).pdf
PDF 4 MB 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 outlining the evaluation factors for award under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation methodology.
The contract will be awarded to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror among those meeting all minimum standards. Technical acceptability is evaluated on a pass/fail basis across Factor 1 (Technical Acceptability) and Factor 2 (Past Performance), with any unacceptable rating rendering the entire proposal ineligible for award. Under Factor 1, offerors must demonstrate: (1) active status as an NSA Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Approved Trusted Integrator, with failure to provide proof resulting in immediate rejection; (2) explicit certification that all assigned personnel hold required active security clearances—Secret clearance for general on-site personnel and Top Secret clearance for personnel executing configuration tasks, with the government not sponsoring clearances; (3) a feasible, compliant, and detailed technical approach addressing three Contract Line Items (CLINs): CLIN 0001 (Study & Design) requiring AP-on-a-stick surveys and high-level/low-level design documentation, CLIN 0002 (Procurement & Install) requiring CAT6A shielded plenum cabling deployment and 802.1x NAC/WIDS configuration, and CLIN 0003 (Testing & Validation) requiring RF coverage verification and STIG/CSfC compliance; and (4) a detailed milestone schedule demonstrating full project completion within 120 calendar days from contract award, accounting for government review periods. Factor 2 requires at least two reference projects completed within five years of similar size, scope (enterprise wireless), and complexity (CSfC/DoD environments) with satisfactory performance, though offerors without relevant past performance receive a neutral rating treated as acceptable. Factor 3 evaluates price for completeness (all CLINs priced with travel costs included and detailed Bill of Materials for CLIN 0002), balance, and reasonableness, with extremely low pricing potentially indicating performance risk. Award is made to the lowest total proposed price among technically acceptable proposals.
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 M Evaluation Factors for Award.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 | ||
| 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
굋굌굍굎굏굒교굑 Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award (LPTA)
Overview of the LPTA Process
Award will be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable oƯeror. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability based on the factors listed below.
Technical proposals will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. A rating of "Unacceptable" in any factor or subfactor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award. There will be no tradeoƯs; technical superiority above the minimum standard will not be scored, nor will it justify the award of a higher-priced proposal.
Factor 1: Technical Acceptability (Pass/Fail)
To be rated as Technically Acceptable, the oƯeror’s proposal must meet or exceed the following minimum standards across all subfactors:
Subfactor Standard for Acceptability
Subfactor 1.1:NSA CSfC Status
The oƯeror (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 oƯeror 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 eƯort.
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 oƯeror 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 (Pass/Fail)
Past performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. The government will assess the relevance and quality of the oƯeror's recent performance to determine the likelihood of successful contract execution.
Rating Description
Acceptable Based on the oƯeror’s performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the oƯeror will successfully perform the required eƯort. Requires at least two (2) reference projects completed within the last five (5) years of similar size, scope (enterprise wireless), and complexity (CSfC/DoD environments) with satisfactory or better performance.
Unacceptable Based on the oƯeror’s performance record, the government does not have a reasonable expectation that the oƯeror will be able to successfully perform the required eƯort. Note: In the case of an oƯeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the oƯeror 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 oƯeror 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 oƯeror 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 .