NSAM3 RFP Sec J Attachment 27 Annual Portfolio Review Form REV B JAN23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Naval Shipbuilding and Advanced Manufacturing 3 (NSAM 3)
- Solicitation number
- N0001424R0002
About this file
This document provides details for a draft request for proposal for operation of the Naval Shipbuilding and Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence III. The Department of the Navy Secretary of the Navy Office of Naval Research intends to award a single, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period of two years and three optional one-year periods, with an additional optional six-month extension. Services required include identifying, developing, and facilitating advanced manufacturing technologies to reduce cost and time for building and sustaining key naval platforms such as submarines, carriers, surface combatants, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The contractor will operate and manage the center to develop technologies and transition them for implementation in U.S. shipyards and other industrial facilities. No response is required for this draft RFP, with the final RFP anticipated for release on or around March 29, 2024.
View the file
Other files
Show all 32
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 .