The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Section J, Attachment 1, Self-Scoring Worksheet
Pass/Fail Criteria
The pass/fail criteria are an essential element of the Government evaluation criteria and must be completed. Please circle Yes or No to the following question(s). Support documentation is required to validate the answers provided below.
1. Higher-Level Quality Assurance: To be considered for award, the Offeror must be certified to a higher-level quality assurance standard. A certification to one of the below standards is required. Failure to provide a valid/current certificate for the claimed quality assurance standard will render the Offeror ineligible for award.
| Yes |
| No |
| Is the offeror AS9100 Certified and/or does the offeror have an international certification equivalent? |
Self-Evaluation Points Criteria
The questions posed in this section are intended to reach beyond the essential business requirements of having programs and processes in place to sustain normal business operations. They are designed to ascertain how well each program and process is implemented and engrained into the Offeror’s core methods, systems, techniques, processes, behaviors, and culture.
1. Relevant Experience: Does the offeror have recent work examples (completed programs) that are relevant in both scope and size to the work required for this program? Recent = within the past 36 months.
| 1 Point |
| The offeror provided no verification or validation of work examples that are relevant and recent to the work required under this program, and/or information provided is anecdotal. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet customer requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of work examples that are semi-relevant and semi-recent to the work required under this program. Work examples provided are not fully relevant and recent. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The offeror provided verification and validation of work examples that are relevant and recent to the work required under this program. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 7 Points |
| The offeror provided verification and validation of work examples that are highly relevant and recent to the work required under this program. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Work examples demonstrate fully-successful performance of commercial aerospace components for use in commercial applications. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 10 Points |
| The offeror provided verification and validation of work examples that are highly relevant and recent to the work required under this program. The offeror provided information provides very |
high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet and exceed customer requirements. Work examples demonstrate fully-successful performance of highly specialized military aerospace components for use in military applications. Work examples further demonstrate a history of offeror’s ability to meet military conformance and acceptance requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required.
2. Facilities and Equipment: Does the offeror have equipment/machinery, facilities, and floor space for production of representative bracket assemblies up to 300 kits over a two (2) year period? Specifically does the offeror provide verification and validation that they can:
· Obtain and handle a wide variety of required materials, given applicable specifications defined in a TDP
· Machine parts (i.e. form, contour, manipulate large and small unformed stock)
· Conduct post-manufacturing processes (e.g. heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, paint, apply specialized coatings, harden, etc.)
· Apply metrology and inspection to ensure dimensional conformity
· Perform non-destructive testing to ensure specifications are met
| 1 Point |
| The offeror provided no verification or validation of existing facilities, working floor space or availability and capacity of existing production equipment/machinery. Conditions likely exist that would impair compliance with the customer’s requirements. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet customer requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The offeror has provided some/limited verification and validation of existing facilities, working floor space and availability and capacity of existing production equipment/machinery. Production conditions may be adequate to meet some customer requirements, but conditions may exist that would impair full compliance and/or the Offeror’s ability to meet all customer requirements. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing facilities, working floor space and availability and capacity of existing production equipment/machinery. Production conditions are adequate to meet customer requirements. Minor conditions may exist that would impair compliance with the customer’s requirements. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 7 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing facilities, working floor space and availability and capacity of existing production equipment/machinery. Production conditions are mature and well-organized to meet customer requirements. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 10 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing facilities, working floor space and availability and capacity of existing production equipment/machinery. Production conditions are advanced, organized and likely exceed customer requirements. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. The offeror has provided detailed supporting information regarding their infrastructure and partnerships that includes facilities, workspace and associated utilities, material handling equipment, process equipment, inspection equipment, finishing equipment, and supporting services such as maintenance and calibration. |
3. Production Personnel: Does the offeror have qualified personnel for their operational size and for production of representative bracket assemblies in required quantities?
| 1 Point |
| The offeror has not provided verification and validation of existing qualified personnel conducive for operations and production. The offeror has not provided verification and validation regarding how personnel are trained, retained, recruited or evidence of a personnel focused human resources function. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet customer requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The offeror has provided some/limited verification and validation of existing qualified personnel conducive for operations and production. Production personnel may be adequate to meet some requirements, but conditions may exist that would impair the offeror’s ability to meet all customer requirements. The offeror has provided some/limited verification and validation regarding how personnel are trained, retained, and recruited. The offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of a human resources function but there is little information regarding human resources procedures and operations. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing qualified personnel conducive for operations and production. The offeror provided verification and validation regarding the existence of a personnel training program, personnel retention practices and recruitment planning. The offeror has provided verification and validation that a dedicated human resources function is operational, staffed, has written procedures and implements basic human resources functions including legal compliance. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing qualified personnel conducive for operations and production. The offeror provided verification and validation regarding the existence of a formal and structured personnel training program, personnel retention practices and recruitment planning. The offeror has provided verification and validation that a dedicated human resources function is operational, staffed, has written procedures and implements basic human resources functions including legal compliance, fairness, and diversity. The Offeror has provided verifiable evidence that they actively manage personnel retention rates, conduct internal career advancement planning and have existing recruitment planning activities that are consistently updated and managed. Minor Government oversight would likely be required |
| 5 Points |
| The offeror has provided verification and validation of existing highly-qualified, experienced personnel conducive for operations and production. The offeror provided verification and validation regarding the existence of a formal and structured personnel training program, personnel retention practices and recruitment planning. The offeror has provided verification and validation of a comprehensive human resources function that is staffed, has regularly updated written procedures and implements advanced human resources functions including legal compliance, fairness, and diversity. The offeror has provided verifiable evidence that personnel are consistently trained and cross-trained for efficient operation of equipment and work functions. The Offeror has provided verifiable evidence of high employee retention rates, opportunity for internal personnel advancement, individual career planning activities, and on-the-job advancement training programs. No Government oversight would likely be required. The Offeror’s personnel management culture is a continuous improvement culture. |
4. Administrative Personnel: Does the offeror have management personnel, organizational structure, and facilities to meet administrative requirements?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of administrative staff and administrative working space. There is no verifiable evidence of contracting, financial, accounting, program management, quality assurance, or other operational and administrative staff. The Offeror’s lack of administrative staff and other operational functions would likely impair compliance with the customer’s requirements. The Offeror has provided no verification or validation that administrative offices and administrative personnel are organized and effective. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet customer requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of administrative staff and administrative working space. The Offeror has provided some/limited verification and validation of administrative functions such as contracting, financial management, accounting, program management, quality assurance and other administrative staff conducive to efficient operations. The Offeror has provided some/limited description of roles, responsibilities, staff hierarchy or visible flow of information and approvals. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of adequate administrative staff and administrative working space. The Offeror has provided verification and validation of administrative functions such as contracting, financial management, accounting, program management, quality assurance and other administrative staff conducive to efficient operations. The Offeror has provided a description of roles, responsibilities, staff hierarchy and visible flow of information and approvals. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of experienced administrative staff and improved administrative working space. The Offeror has provided verification and validation of dedicated administrative functions such as contracting, financial management, accounting, program management, quality assurance and other administrative staff conducive to efficient operations. The Offeror has provided a detailed description of roles, responsibilities, staff hierarchy and visible flow of information and approvals. The Offeror has provided verification and validation of existing procedures to proactively manage and monitor subcontractors, teaming partners, and associate contractor relationships and provide confidence in ability to ensure execution of all SOW requirements and meet cost/schedule/performance requirements. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of experienced administrative staff and refined administrative working space. The Offeror has provided verification and validation of dedicated administrative functions such as contracting, financial management, accounting, program management, quality assurance and other administrative staff conducive to efficient operations. The Offeror has provided a detailed description of roles, responsibilities, staff hierarchy and visible flow of information and approvals. The Offeror has provided verification and validation of clear lines of authority and paths of communication are sufficiently detailed. Procedures to proactively manage and monitor subcontractors, teaming partners, and associate contractor relationships are robust and provide confidence in ability to ensure execution of all SOW requirements and meet cost/schedule/performance requirements. Communication processes and procedures within the company and with the Government are detailed with appropriate responsiveness to government requests, effective problem resolution, and successful completion of all requirements. Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Officer positions demonstrate appropriate visibility to senior decision makers and sufficient authority, responsibility, and resources to execute the program. Key positions and their roles/responsibilities and authorities are identified and detailed on how they are considered essential to successful contract performance. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. The Offeror’s administrative personnel culture is a continuous improvement culture. |
5. Does the offeror have a risk assessment/risk management program?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror does not have a risk management plan and does not recognize a need to assess risks or a need to determine steps necessary to mitigate any risks. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet risk assessment/risk management requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror recognizes a need for a risk management plan but has not yet initiated a process or procedure for implementing such a plan. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet risk assessment/risk management requirements. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror has initiated a process for identifying and assessing risks. Evidence of Risk Assessment activities is visible (e.g. process maps, value stream maps, design trees, etc.) A Risk Management plan is not available or is in the early stages of development. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet risk assessment/risk management requirements. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror has an active process for Risk Assessment and has implemented fundamental steps of a Risk Management program. Evidence of reactive risk management efforts is visible. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet risk assessment/risk management requirements. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror has implemented risk assessment/risk management plans that address both preventative and reactive risk management activities, resulting in risk-informed decision-making. Risk Management appears to be a culture instilled by and driven from the top levels of decision makers. The Offeror’s risk management culture is a continuous improvement culture. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet risk assessment/risk management requirements. |
6. Does the Offeror have a defined environmental, health, and safety (EHS) program in use?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of a defined environmental, health, and safety program. Unsafe conditions may exist in Offeror’s facility and Personnel safety is likely a low priority. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet environmental, health, and safety requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of a defined environmental, health, and safety program. Personnel safety can’t be fully verified as a high priority. Unsafe conditions may exist in Offeror’s facility. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of a defined environmental, health, and safety program. The Offeror has a policy statement addressing safety; personnel safety is prioritized. Unsafe conditions are unlikely to exist in Offeror’s facility. The Offeror has provided verification and validation that: |
· personnel are trained / instructed in safety issues (training records maintained)
· hazardous materials are identified, properly stored and disposed of
· MSDS sheets are managed for all chemicals on-site and they are readily available to personnel proper handling equipment / protective equipment is available and it is in use
· personal protective equipment is required (e.g. safety glasses, closed toe shoes)
The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required.
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of a defined environmental, health, and safety program. Offeror has a policy statement addressing safety; personnel safety is prioritized. Offeror’s procedures address environmental and health issues via a policy statement. Unsafe conditions are unlikely to exist in Offeror’s facility. The Offeror has provided verification and validation that: |
· personnel are trained / instructed in safety issues (training records maintained)
· hazardous materials are identified, properly stored and disposed of
· MSDS sheets are managed for all chemicals on-site and they are readily available to personnel
· proper handling equipment / protective equipment is available and it is in use
· personal protective equipment is required (e.g. safety glasses, closed toe shoes)
· an individual is responsible for overseeing EHS program within its facility
· safety records (accidents) are tracked
The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required.
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of a defined environmental, health, and safety program. Offeror has a policy statement addressing safety; personnel safety is prioritized. Offeror’s procedures address environmental and health issues via a policy statement. Unsafe conditions are unlikely to exist in Offeror’s facility. The Offeror has provided verification and validation that: |
· personnel are trained / instructed in safety issues (training records maintained)
· hazardous materials are identified, properly stored and disposed of
· MSDS sheets are managed for all chemicals on-site and they are readily available to personnel
· proper handling equipment / protective equipment is available and it is in use
· personal protective equipment is required (e.g. safety glasses, closed toe shoes)
· an individual is responsible for overseeing EHS program within its facility
· safety records (accidents) are tracked
· OSHA 200 log of recordable injuries is available and annual posting is displayed and current
The Offeror has provided verification and validation that they have procedures that address notifying customers if safety matters (e.g. accidents, lost time) will affect product quality or delivery. The Offeror utilizes a safety checklist and conducts audits to evaluate environmental, health, and safety conditions. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required.
7. Does the Offeror have documented Work Instructions for manufacturing of product?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation that Work Instructions are used for manufacturing. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that some/limited informal Work Instructions are available, but documentation is not controlled. Key fabrication and assembly processes are not identified. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that informal Work Instructions are available and in use and there is basic evidence that documentation is controlled or maintained. Key fabrication and assembly processes are identified. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that formal Work Instructions are available for manufacturing processes and the documents are controlled through a formal release system. Key fabrication and assembly processes are identified. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that formal Work Instructions are utilized for all processes. A robust document control system is utilized to manage documentation which includes a method to ensure that only controlled documents are utilized. Work Instructions provide detailed fabrication and assembly steps and highlight steps that are critical to correct manufacture of the product. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. |
8. Does the Offeror have documented procedures that provide instructions on how components, assemblies and raw materials are to be handled and stored?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of existing processes/procedures that address material handling or storage. Material handling may be inadequate and places product at risk of handling damage. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for handling and storage of material. Handling and storage processes may be adequate to prevent damage, but Offeror provided support data is unclear or ambiguous. It is not fully clear that aged and environment-controlled material storage is available. Limited procedures exist that define storage and handling controls. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures that define how material and products are to be handled and stored throughout the manufacturing process. The Offeror’s procedures identify the records to be maintained, the duration of retention, and method for disposal of obsolete records. The Offeror’s processes/procedures define the storage and handling of aged and environmentally controlled materials and environment-controlled material storage is available. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures that define how material and products are to be handled and stored throughout the manufacturing processes to include considerations for prevention of oxidation and contamination. The Offeror’s procedures identify the records to be maintained, the duration of retention, and method for disposal of obsolete records. Processes/procedures define authority for releasing product from storage areas to either production or shipping. The Offeror’s processes/procedures define the storage and handling of aged and environmentally controlled materials and environment-controlled material storage is available. Aged and environmentally controlled product storage is monitored and validated on a periodic basis. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures that define how material and products are to be handled and stored throughout the manufacturing process to include considerations for prevention of oxidation and contamination and tracking inventory turnover. The Offeror’s procedures identify the records to be maintained, the duration of retention, and method for disposal of obsolete records. The Offeror has a formal process for ensuring stock rotation and the management of date sensitive shelf-life components and materials. The Offeror has a process for prevention of product damage and preserving product integrity, including correct storage facilities, temperatures and humidity. Non-conforming material is quarantined in controlled areas and not allowed to commingle with other inventory. Purchased product is not consumed or processed until it has been verified as conforming to specified requirements. The Offeror’s processes/procedures define the storage and handling of aged and environmentally controlled materials and environment-controlled material storage is available. Aged and environmentally controlled product storage is monitored and validated on a periodic basis. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. |
9. Does the Offeror have a formal maintenance program for its manufacturing equipment?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for maintenance of equipment. Corrective maintenance is performed on equipment only when failure occurs. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for maintenance of equipment, or maintenance may be performed irregularly. Records of corrective and preventative maintenance are not complete. The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation that equipment is clean and maintained and limited information was provided to support a structured maintenance program. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for preventive maintenance of equipment. A preventive maintenance schedule exists and is followed. Records reflect that preventative maintenance is performed per schedule and corrective maintenance is fully documented. Equipment is clean and appear to be well maintained. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for preventive maintenance of equipment. Historical maintenance of each piece of equipment is tracked. Machine availability (up time) is measured. Equipment is clean and appear to be well maintained. A Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) process has been introduced and is in the early stages of implementation. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation of existing processes/procedures for preventive maintenance of equipment. Historical maintenance of each piece of equipment is tracked. Machine availability (up time) is measured. Equipment is clean and appear to be well maintained. Machine capability studies are performed. Visual controls on equipment maintenance are seen throughout manufacturing areas. An active fully implemented TPM process is in place to ensure machine availability (up time). The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. |
10. Does the Offeror and major sub-tier suppliers (if required by contract) have a robust process for evaluating incoming materials?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of that they have certs on all in-coming materials 100% of the time. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation that they and their sub-tier suppliers get certs 100% of time but supporting data is not received 100% of the time. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that they and their sub-tier suppliers get certs and supporting data 100% of the time. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that they and their sub-tier suppliers get certs with supporting data and validate data against requirements 100% of the time. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that they and their sub-tier suppliers get certs with data and validate data against requirements 100% of the time. The Offeror also has an internal process for performing random audits to independently validate cert data. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. |
11. Does the Offeror monitor sub-tier quality and delivery performance?
| 1 Point |
| The Offeror provided no verification and validation of that they monitor or report sub-tier supplier performance. The offeror provided information provides no-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. |
| 2 Points |
| The Offeror provided some/limited verification and validation that they track sub-tier suppliers’ quality performance but does not report its findings to the sub-tier. No evidence can be found regarding sub-tier delivery performance. The offeror provided information provides low-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Significant Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 3 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that they track sub-tier suppliers’ quality and delivery performance. Some reports are sent to the sub-tier suppliers, but this reporting is not provided on a regular basis, or it is limited to only some of the sub-tier suppliers. The offeror provided information provides basic-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Some Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 4 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that Sub-tier quality and delivery performance is tracked and reported on a regular basis with the entire sub-tier supply base. Formal corrective actions are required for sub-standard quality performance. No formal corrective action is required for sub-standard delivery performance. The offeror provided information provides high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. Minor Government oversight would likely be required. |
| 5 Points |
| The Offeror provided verification and validation that Sub-tier quality and delivery performance is tracked and reported on a regular basis with the entire sub-tier supply base. Sub-tier supplier performance is tracked and reported to the sub-tier supply base along with minimum performance expectations. Sub-tier suppliers falling below the established minimums are issued corrective actions. The offeror provided information provides very high-confidence in their ability to meet requirements. No Government oversight would likely be required. |
Scoring Summary Table: Contractor to complete Self-Score column and Offer’s Self-Score Total.
| Question |
| Self-Score |
| Validated Score (Govt Only) |
| Total Possible |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 10 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 10 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 5 |
Total
| [to be completed by the GPT] |
| 65 |
Offeror’s Self-Score Total: [to be completed by the Offeror].
Government Validated Score Total: [to be completed by the GPT]