PATS_Base_IDIQ-Exhibit_A_Eval_Crit_C.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M67854-15-R-4801
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
PATS Exhibit A Evaluation Criteria Checklist
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
Evaluation Criteria Checklist
| Exhibit A – PATS Evaluation Criteria Checklist: Offeror XXX | ||||||
| Compliance review | PWS Reference | Yes | No | Proposal Reference (Volume, Page, Paragraph, Line) | If No or Unacceptable, explain Why | Notes or Questions |
| The proposal substantially conforms with the preparation instructions. | ||||||
| Compensation Plan | PWS Reference | Acceptable | Unacceptable | Proposal Reference (Volume, Page, Paragraph, Line) | If No or Unacceptable, explain Why | Notes or Questions |
| In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, compensation levels demonstrate a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives meets the requirements of the solicitation. | ||||||
| Technical Approach | PWS Reference | Yes | No | Proposal Reference (Volume, Page, Paragraph, Line) | If No or Unacceptable, explain Why | Notes or Questions |
| The offeror provides a statement that they ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND, AND SHALL PERFORM, when directed, the following PWS requirements in accordance with Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 2 QASP of the Base ID/IQ contract, and as directed in any Task Order specific attachments: |
3.1 - 3.6
4.1.1 - 4.1.11
4.1.12 - 4.1.18
4.2.10 - 4.2.17
4.3.1 - 4.3.6
4.3.8 - 4.3.15 7 3.1 - 3.6
4.1.1 - 4.1.11
4.1.12 - 4.1.18
4.2.10 - 4.2.17
4.3.1 - 4.3.6
4.3.8 - 4.3.15
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to review and provide comments on System Integrator deliverables on a monthly basis. | 4.2.1 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to maintain PMRs and Quad Charts for TFITS Managed Projects and TFITS Supported Projects on a monthly basis. | 4.2.2 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to draft all Shopping Cart orders and Information Technology (IT) Requests using the IS&I Shopping Cart and Information Technology Procurement Request Review/Approval System (ITPRAS) within TFITS. | 4.2.3 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to submit all Shopping Cart orders and Information Technology (IT) Requests using the IS&I Shopping Cart and Information Technology Procurement Request Review/Approval System (ITPRAS) within TFITS. | 4.2.3 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to track all Shopping Cart orders and Information Technology (IT) Requests using the IS&I Shopping Cart and Information Technology Procurement Request Review/Approval System (ITPRAS) within TFITS. | 4.2.3 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to update the TFITS IT Request Tracker on a weekly basis. | 4.2.3 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to participate and develop agenda and meeting minutes for the weekly Tier 2 and Tier 3 IPTs. | 4.2.4 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to submit agenda and meeting minutes for the weekly Tier 2 and Tier 3 IPTs. | 4.2.4 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to submit recommendations to Project issues for the weekly Tier 2 and Tier 3 IPTs. | 4.2.4 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to provide updates and resolutions to action items for the weekly Tier 2 and Tier 3 IPTs. | 4.2.4 | |||||
| The offeror will obtain and maintain access to Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability (ACART) Tool. | 4.2.5 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to update each Project record in the ACART Tool on an annual basis. | 4.2.5 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to document Project risks identified by the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Project Managers on a monthly basis. | 4.2.6 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to update Project risks identified by the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Project Managers on a monthly basis. | 4.2.6 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to track Project risks identified by the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Project Managers on a monthly basis. | 4.2.6 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to maintain the ISI Risk Tracker on SharePoint. | 4.2.6 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to maintain Project-level Integrated Master Schedules (IMS) in a government Microsoft Project/Microsoft Project Server 2013 | 4.2.7 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to provide the IMS derived schedule and supporting data to PjMs on a monthly basis for inclusion in the TFITS Quad Chart. | 4.2.8 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to verify TFITS Projects are registered in DADMS (Department of Navy Application and Database Management System)/Department of Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository – Department of the Navy (DITPR-DON). | 4.2.9 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to review/update DITPR-DON records for Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting and non-tier annual reviews to support OSD mandates. | 4.2.9 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to draft Business Case Analyses in support of TFITS contract modifications. | 4.2.18 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to forecast ECPs to replace or upgrade any hardware or software item that is within 12 months of the projected End of Life / End of Service or end of warranty support / end of software assurance. | 4.3.7 | |||||
| The offeror demonstrates their approach to submit ECPs to replace or upgrade any hardware or software item that is within 12 months of the projected End of Life / End of Service or end of warranty support / end of software assurance. | 4.3.7 | |||||
| The Offeror's Corporate Experience demonstrates they have the requisite corporate experience; including experience with the DoD or Federal Acquisition experience. | ||||||
| Based on the Technical Approach and Historical Information (Exhibit E), the Offeror's Level of Effort appears balanced and realistic. | ||||||
| Past Performance | Acceptable | Unacceptable | Neutral | Proposal Reference (Volume, Page, Paragraph, Line) | If No or Unacceptable, explain Why | Notes or Questions |
| Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort in a DoD environment. |
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .