Attachment 3- Cross Reference Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SP4705_BCS_UCS_COMBINED_IDIQ
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency
About this file
This is a Compliance Checklist and Cross Reference Matrix used for evaluating proposals submitted in response to the BCS/UCS DLA Lifecycle Management Services IDIQ contract solicitation (SP4705-26-R-0003). The document serves as both a contractor instruction template and a government evaluation tool, with green-highlighted cells designated for contractor completion.
The matrix establishes a three-step proposal review process: (1) Proposal Compliance Review, (2) Gate Entry Criteria evaluation, and (3) Trade Off Source Selection. Contractors must complete compliance items including submission of complete proposal packages by closing date, signed SF-1449 forms (Blocks 17 and 30), amendments, cross-reference worksheets, and adherence to specified format and content requirements. Entry Gate Criteria require pass/fail evaluations across five subfactors: Subfactor A addresses Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) and Risk Management Framework (RMF) compliance with DISA requirements; Subfactor B evaluates patch and vulnerability management approaches; Subfactor C assesses DoD 8140 certified personnel qualifications; Subfactor D evaluates facility size experience through demonstrated past project details; and Subfactor E verifies active Facility Clearance status. The matrix also defines evaluation ratings (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable for technical factors; Pass/Fail for gate criteria) and establishes criteria for assessing past performance using recency, relevancy, and performance confidence metrics. The four primary evaluation factors for award include Technical Capability, Sample Task Order Technical/Staffing Qualifications, and Past Performance, each subdivided into specific subfactors with adjectival rating scales.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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
Compliance Checklist Proposal Review/Evaluation Process and Compliance Review Checklist Instruction to Contractor: fill in green highlighted cells only.
| Review Process: | |||||
| 1 | Proposal Compliance Review | If acceptable, go to next step #2 | |||
| 2 | Gate Entry Criteria | If acceptable, go to next step #3 | Proposal Received date | Proposal Received time | |
| 3 | Trade Off Source Selection | Contractor Name: |
Compliance Checklist Reference Contractor to confirm Yes Govt Verification Verified by Date Comment
| Submitted a complete proposal package by closing date and time? | ||
| Completed Block 17 of SF1449? | RFP B.2 | |
| Completed and signed Block 30 of SF1449? | RFP B.2 | |
| Submitted signed Amendment(s) as applicable? | RFP B.2 | |
| Submitted complete Cross Reference Worksheet? | RFP B.2 | |
| Followed format and content from Instructions for Offeror? | RFP E.1.5 | |
| Submitted Entry Gate Criteria proposal? | RFP E.1.7.1 | |
| Submitted complete Non-Price proposal? | RFP E.1.7.2 - E.1.7.4 | |
| Submitted complete Price/Cost proposal? | RFP E.1.7.25 | |
| Meet SB size standard for NAICS solicited? | ||
| SAM registration active? | ||
| Offerors shall indicate where their Section 508 EIT compliance information is available for review. | RFP Clauses |
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
Cross Reference BCS/UCS Cross Reference - Entry Gate Criteria and Evaluation Factors Instruction to Contractor: fill in green highlighted cells only.
| Entry Gate Criteria: | |||||||
| PWS Ref Section | Criteria | Evaluation | Rating | Ref Section | Instructions | Ref Section | Cross Reference Matrix for Contractor |
| C.4 | Entry Gate: Proposals will be evaluated on Cybersecurity Capabilities and Expertise. | Evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Cybersecurity approach, as detailed in its proposal, will satisfy the Government’s requirements as identified in PWS Section C.4. | Pass/Fail | E.1.7 | Provide at least two examples of when work has been performed in support of the Security |
Implementation Guides (STIGs) as well as the Risk Management Framework (RMF) by providing a list and snapshot (just a representative sample portion and example of the documentation) you have previously provided in support of RMF for other DoD systems (Ex. CONOPS, Configuration
| Management Plan, STIGs, Plan of Action and Milestones). | E.1.7.1 | |||||
| C.4.6 | Subfactor A: Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) and Risk Management Framework (RMF) | All system/network components and applications shall be compatible with all applicable Defense Information System Agency (DISA) STIGs. Any STIG exceptions must be approved by J6 Cybersecurity. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor must provide a complete list of all ports, protocols, and services (PPSM) required for any computer system running control system applications. | C.4.6.5 | |
| C.4.7 | Subfactor B: Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach | The Patch and Vulnerability Management Approach factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach satisfies the Government’s requirements as identified in the PWS. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor will be responsible for all installation, configuration, and deployment of the OT solution(s) and/or system(s) including its subsystem(s), application(s), and patch cabling. | C.4.7.1 | |
| C.4.1 | Subfactor C: 8140 Certified Personnel | Contractor personnel supporting cybersecurity functions shall be appropriately certified according to DoD Manual (DoDM) 8140.03 Cyberspace Workforce Qualification & Management Program. | Pass/Fail | The Contractor is responsible to provide qualified personnel, as specified, and as required by the PWS, and shall bear all cost for training its personnel. | C.4.1.4 | |
| C.3.1 | Subfactor D: Facility Size Experience | This subfactor assesses the Offeror's demonstrated experience in managing and providing services to facilities of a similar size and complexity to those described in the PWS. | Pass/Fail | The Offeror must provide details of past projects, including facility descriptions and scope of work performed, to demonstrate experience with facilities of comparable size. | C.3.1.1 | |
| C.2.36 | Subfactor C: Facility Clearance Level | Rates the verification of a favorable active Facility Clearance (FCL) at the time of award or sponsored status capability. | Pass/Fail | The Offeror must describe their current facility clearance status and their plan for ensuring that personnel can obtain the necessary clearances for task orders requiring access to classified areas. | C.2.36.2 |
| PWS | Evaluation Factors for Award | Instructions to Offeror | Cross Reference Matrix for Contractor | ||||
| PWS Ref Section | Factor/Subfactors | Evaluation Criteria | Rating | Ref Section | Instructions | Ref Section | Reference Volume/ Page/Para |
| C.2 | Factor 1: Technical Capability | The Government will review proposals to determine whether the Offeror has adequately demonstrated an ability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. | Adjectival | C.3 | The Contractor will be responsible for all installation, configuration, and deployment of the OT solution(s) and/or system(s) including its subsystem(s), application(s), and patch cabling. | C.2 (Intro) | |
| C.2.39 | Subfactor 1A: IDIQ Technical and Project Management Capabilities (Expertise, Approach) | The IDIQ Technical and Management Expertise/Approach factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical and project management capabilities satisfy the Government’s requirements. | Adjectival | C.2.39.2 | The Contractor is responsible to provide qualified personnel, as specified, and as required by the PWS, and shall bear all cost for training its personnel. | C.2.40 | |
| C.2.3 | Subfactor 1B: BCS/UCS Experience and Multiple Sites Support | This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's experience with Building Control Systems (BCS) and Utility Control Systems (UCS) across multiple, geographically dispersed locations as described in the PWS. | Adjectival | C.6 | The Offeror must provide details of past projects, including facility descriptions and scope of work performed, to demonstrate experience with facilities of comparable size. | C.2.3.3 | |
| C.2.42 | Factor 2: Sample Task Order Technical/Staffing Qualifications | The Key Personnel factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed personnel approach, as detailed in its proposal, will satisfy the Government’s personnel requirements. | Adjectival | C.2.42.2 | The Offeror must describe their current facility clearance status and their plan for ensuring that personnel can obtain the necessary clearances for task orders requiring access to classified areas. | C.2.42.1 | |
| C.3.4 | Subfactor 2A: Maintenance Plan | The Routine Maintenance Technical Plan factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical plan satisfies the Government's requirements as identified in the PWS. | Adjectival | C.3.4.2 | The Contractor will be responsible for all installation, configuration, and deployment of the OT solution(s) and/or system(s) including its subsystem(s), application(s), and patch cabling. | C.3.4.1 | |
| C.2.50 | Subfactor 2B: Quality Control Plan | The Site Management and Quality Control Plans factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror's proposed site management and quality control plan satisfies the Government's requirements. | Adjectival | C.2.50.2 | The Contractor is responsible to provide qualified personnel, as specified, and as required by the PWS, and shall bear all cost for training its personnel. | C.2.50.1 | |
| C.2.42.1 | Subfactor 2C: Key Personnel Qualification | BCS/UCS System/Site-specific key personnel will be required at the TO level. Each TO PWS will detail the specific Key Personnel required for each DLA site. | Adjectival | C.3.2.2 | The Offeror must provide details of past projects, including facility descriptions and scope of work performed, to demonstrate experience with facilities of comparable size. | C.3.2.1 |
N/A Factor 3: Past Performance This factor evaluates three aspects to the past performance: recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror's past performance to determine their confidence level in successfully performing the requirement. Adjectival N/A (Instructions) The Offeror must describe their current facility clearance status and their plan for ensuring that personnel can obtain the necessary clearances for task orders requiring access to classified areas. N/A (Instructions)
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
Rating descriptions Factor/Subfactor Adjectival Ratings
| Color Rating | Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Blue | Outstanding | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Purple | Good | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. |
| Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Yellow | Marginal | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. |
| Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) Ratings |
| Green | Acceptable (Pass) | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Red | Unacceptable (Fail) | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. |
| Strength/Weakness/Deficiency Definitions |
| Significant Strength | An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance |
| Strength | 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. |
| Weakness | A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Significant Weakness | A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Deficiency | 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. |
| Past Performance Recency Rating | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Recent | Past performance (contract started) within 5 years from closing date of this solicitation. |
| Not Recent | Past performance (contract started) over 5 years from closing date of this solicitation. |
| Past Performance Relevancy Ratings | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value over $10M, at least 10 supported sites, and performance period at least 12 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value over $5M, at least 5 supported sites, and performance period at least 6 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities (contract total value under $5M, less than 5 supported sites, and performance period less than 6 months) this solicitation requires. |
| Performance Confidence Assessment Rating | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Neutral Confidence | No recent / relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. |
| Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .