Att.12_-Cross_Reference_Matrix_.xlsx

Sheet1

A. This evaluation will cover the following Factors:

Area I – Technical Area II – Management/Logistics Area III – Price Proposal/Administrative Area IV- Performance Risk

A. Technical Proposals will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal will be evaluated against three Factors: Factor 1, Technical Understanding and Factor 2, Information Assurance, Factor 3, Safety, Safety Assessment. To be eligible for award, a proposal must be found acceptable for each Factor. All information provided will be considered in determining the offeror's ability to perform.

3.3.1-3.3.3.2.2;

3.3.3.2.4-3.3.3.10.2;

3.3.3.11-3.3.3.18.1;

3.4.3.2-3.4.3.5;

4.1.2.2-4.6

3-3.5.1;

3.5.1.3-3.5.1.4;

3.5.2 – 3.5.2.1.1;

3.5.2.2 – 3.7.1.1.5;

3.8.1.1 - 5 1. Discuss your solution to provide contract line items that meet all the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) and System Specification (SPEC). a. Factor 1- Technical Understanding: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's technical knowledge and ability to perform technical requirements. The Government’s evaluation will include:

i. Evaluations of the approach, methodology, and ability to accomplish the CLIN items requirements identified in the SOW and SPEC.

N/A N/A 2. Provide a Requirements Traceability Matrix that identifies each technical solution mapped to the SPEC/SOW requirements a. Factor 1- ...

ii. Evaluation of the Requirements Traceability Matrix that identifies each technical solution mapped to the SPEC/SOW requirements N/A N/A 3. Discuss your solution to meeting the Information Assurance requirements outlined in the SOW and SPEC. b. Factor 2- Information Assurance

i. Evaluation of the approach, methodology, and ability to accomplish the requested Information Assurance requirements

4-4.1.2.1 3.5.1.1-3.5.1.2;

3.5.1.5;

3.7.2 – 3.7.2.1;

3.7.4-3.7.5; 4. Discuss your solution to comply and deliver Safety Assessment Reports. Provide a draft Safety Assessment of 2 systems. c. Factor 3- Safety

i. Evaluation of the draft Safety Assessment Report methodology robert.platt: robert.platt:

Does this include the evaluation of safety approach, or just SARs?

Program Management/Logistics Proposal will be evaluated to assess the offerors ability to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal will be evaluated against four Factors: Factor 1, Integrated Master Schedule; Multiple Delivery Orders Concurrently, Factor 2, Life Cycle Support, Spare Parts, Subfactor 2, COTS/NDI, Factor 3, Technical Documentation, TD Format/Access, Factor 4, Quality Assurance Program.

3.1;

3.2.1 – 3.3;

3.4-3.4.3.1;

5.2.4.7-6 N/A 1. Discuss you planned Integrated Master Schedule for the RTS contract a. Factor 1- Integrated Master Schedule (MS)

i. Evaluation of the proposed IMS, indicated resources within the project team for concurrent projects robert.platt: robert.platt:

Typo, should be "IMS" instead of "MS" " " " " " " " " 2. Discuss your Program Management strategy that outlines an ability to manage and deliver multiple Delivery Orders (DOs) concurrently. ii. Provide a management plan outlining your ability to meet the technical requirements. The management plan should provide an overview of daily operations and procedures/policies to be implemented.

robert.platt: robert.platt:

Section L type language, but in Section M

iii. Identify all subcontractors to be utilized and describe their role under the contract.

robert.platt: robert.platt:

Does not trace to section L. Language does not fit section L.

3.3.3.2.3;

3.3.3.10.3;

5 - 5.2.4.6 3.7.3;

3.7.6 – 3.7.6.2.4

3. Discuss your life cycle support strategy for the systems under RTS

4. Discuss your strategy to meeting the requirements for spare parts with the CLS contractor.

5. Discuss your strategy for re-use of commercial products b. Factor 2- Life Cycle Support

i. Spare Parts

ii. COTS/NDI

All CDRLs N/A 6. Discuss your Technical Documentation strategy. c. Factor 3- Technical Documentation

i. TD Format/Access

3.4.4 N/A 7. Discuss your Quality Assurance Program/System, any certifications you may have received, and methods for continuous quality improvement. d. Factor 4, Quality Assurance Program

ii. Discuss your Quality Assurance Program and methods for continuous quality improvement. Describe your Quality Assurance (QA) program/plan that incorporates inspections as part of the overall QA plan.

robert.platt: robert.platt:

There is no section M factor for stability robert.platt: robert.platt:

Does this include the evaluation of safety approach, or just SARs?

robert.platt: robert.platt:

Typo, should be "IMS" instead of "MS" robert.platt: robert.platt:

Section L type language, but in Section M robert.platt: robert.platt:

Does not trace to section L. Language does not fit section L. N/A N/A 4. To facilitate contract administration, offerors are required to submit line item unit prices and total price will be proposed in whole dollars. b. Reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist for the firm, fixed-price efforts and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the offeror will be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

c. Unbalanced Pricing. Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An unbalanced offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be rejected.

Performance Risk is associated with an offeror's ability to perform the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past and current relevant performance. Each offeror will be evaluated on its past performance on contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three years for similar products or services. A past performance risk will be associated with an offeror's ability to accomplish the requested effort based on the offeror’s relevant demonstrated past performance. The evaluation will assess such factors as relevancy (in complexity, size and scope) to the requirement; quality of product or service; schedule and cost control; and business and customer relationships.

Past performance information will be obtained through the past performance information requested in Section L, Contractor Performance Assessment Rating Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other government departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and/or other sources known to the government, including commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources than requested in Section L, the burden of proving acceptability rests with the offerors.

Squad Immersive Training Environment (SITE) Live Enhancements Cross Reference Matrix M67854-13-R-7802

RFP

mailto:john.e.lynch2@usmc.mil Reqts Document Section Evaluation Factor Requirements