Attach_5_Ratings18Jan17.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enhanced Mobile Satellite Services (EMSS) Global Logistical Services Management Contract (ELOG)
- Solicitation number
- HC101316R0014
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This document provides details for a federal contract opportunity with the Defense Information Systems Agency. The agency is seeking proposals for Enhanced Mobile Satellite Services Global Logistical Services Management contract support, including on-demand field service representatives and other services. The requirement includes primarily customer-funded support for Distributed Tactical Communications Systems equipment with a focus on Iridium satellite-based push-to-talk services. The contract will be a single-award, firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity agreement over five years from May 2017 to April 2022. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541513 and the acquisition is set aside as 100% competitive for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses with a size standard of $27.5 million. Proposals are due to the Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization no later than January 6, 2017.
Attach 5 Ratings
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
Attachment 5 Ratings Tables
HC101316R0014
Table 1. Combined Technical/Management and Risk Ratings
| Color |
| Rating |
| Description |
| BLUE |
| Outstanding |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional |
approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
| PURPLE |
| Good |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough |
approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
| GREEN |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate |
approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
| YELLOW |
| Marginal |
| Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not |
demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
| RED |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or |
more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
Table 2. Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process
Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.
Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.
Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).
Table 3. Ratings for Past Performance
| 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, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. |
| 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. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .