RFP Attachment 4 BVTO Eval Table w No PP.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC1019-22-R-0002
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This document provides details for a request for proposal for information technology and communications services support. The solicitation is an 8(a) small business set aside issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency to support the Commander, Naval Forces Japan and Commander, Navy Region Japan. Services required include IT and communications support. The period of performance is one base year starting June 30, 2022 through June 29, 2023 with four one-year option periods. The contract type is firm fixed price. The incumbent contractor is Premier Solutions HI, LLC. Questions are due by March 10, 2022 and proposals are due by April 4, 2022. The method of evaluation will be tradeoff. A DD254 is required for security. Section 508 for accessibility is not applicable.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet AMD0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1019-22-R-0002 AMD0001.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 7 Question and Answers 28 MAR 2022.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Attachment 1 QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Attachment 2 DD Form 254 April 2018.pdf | ||
| HC1019-22-R-0002.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 5 Questions Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
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).
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .