NSAM3 RFP Sec J Attachment 27 Annual Portfolio Review Form REV B JAN23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Naval Shipbuilding and Advanced Manufacturing 3 (NSAM 3)
- Solicitation number
- N0001424R0002
About this file
This document is an Annual Portfolio Review Evaluation Form associated with the Naval Shipbuilding and Advanced Manufacturing 3 (NSAM 3) federal contract opportunity solicited under Solicitation Number N0001424R0002.
The form is used to evaluate and review the status of ManTech projects under the NSAM 3 program. It assesses factors such as scientific merit, innovation, transition planning, technical progress, business case benefit, and adherence to schedule. The projects are scored as Green, Yellow, or Red based on defined criteria for each evaluation area. The form includes fields to capture additional comments and identify opportunities for technology transition. This evaluation process enables the government to monitor the performance and progress of the ManTech projects being executed under the NSAM 3 contract.
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
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
Data
| Green |
| Yellow |
| Red |
Evaluation Form
| Portfolio Program Officer | |
| Portfolio Name | |
| Reviewing PO Name | |
| Date(s) | Navy ManTech Annual Portfolio Review |
Evaluation Form Type of Program ManTech
| Project Title | Scientific Merit and Accomplishment | Innovation and Potential Impact | Transition Planning | Technical Progress | Business Case Benefit | Adherence to | |
| Schedule | Can work be leveraged? |
Are there opportunities for transition?
| If yes, also include POC information. | Additional Comments | |
| • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? |
• Has a reasonable test plan been identified or executed to support the probable success of the proposed approach?
• Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?
• Is technology implementation considered in a reasonable way and time frame? • What are the unique technical or manufacturing aspects of the project?
• In what way has the project led to new knowledge, tools, or opened new solution pathways by investigating manufacturing technology not previously considered or explored?
| • Does the project challenge and seek to shift current research or established practices by utilizing novel concepts, approaches or methodologies, or instrumentation? | Score Green, |
| Yellow, or Red based on the definitions provided. | Score Green, |
| Yellow, or Red based on the definitions provided. | Score Green, |
| Yellow, or Red based on the definitions provided. | Score Green, |
Yellow, or Red.
| Red | Yellow | Green | |||
| Transition | |||||
| Planning | A TTP has not been signed due to unresolved programmatic, technical or financial issues. |
Or A project implementation plan does not exist or misrepresents the current plans. A current TTP is being routed for signature by all parties or a TTP is being revised.
Or
| An implementation plan does not completely incorporate all necessary action by a project's participants. | A current TTP is signed by all parties and an implementation plan exists and accurately documents plans by all participants. | |
| Technical | ||
| Progress | Acheivement of critical technical goals have been delayed or have not been accomplished. Recovery is not certain. |
Or
| Technical progress is impacting the viability of the project. | Acheivement of technical progress is lagging behind the project's plan. Recovery is acheivable and a recovery plan is in place to resolve the deficiency. | All scheduled technical goals have been achieved to date. Successful acheivement of near term technical requirements is anticipated. | |
| Business Case Benefit | For affordability based projects, an ROI is based on unsubstantiated assumptions. |
Or The ROI (ROI <0.5) and/or business case is low and there are no other benefits that would justify OEM implementation. For an affordability based project, the business case may not be sufficient to warrant the OEM to consider implementation.
Or The business case is based on broad assumptions.
Or A business case needs to be revised before it can be used to justify the OEM implementation. For an affordability based project, a valid and positive business case, based on sufficient details, exists.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .