Attachment0005-PRS_PSST.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W56KGY-15-R-0016
About this file
PRS
View the file
Other files
Show all 39
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
PSS-T PRS
| This performance requirements summary (PRS) applies to the entire performance period of the indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. Individual task orders provide cumulative performance assessment. | The Contractor's performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) rating of the contract will be determined by its ability to meet the metrics defined in this table. The contracting officer's representative (COR) will rate the Contractor based on importance of each requirement as determined during the period of performance of the contract. | ||||
| PWS Section and Rating | Quality | Schedule | Cost Control | Management | Regulatory |
| Intellectual Property (PWS Para 1.7) | |||||
| Excellent | The Contractor defines hardware and software rights. All rights vendor/subContractor identified upfront at beginning of award. | N/A | N/A | N/A | Marks all documentation supplied to the Government in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provisions . The Government does not identify any errors in markings. |
| Very Good | The Contractor identifies all contract rights, but vendor rights are provided sometime later in the contract. | N/A | N/A | N/A | Marks all documentation supplied to the Government IAW FAR and DFARS provisions. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor one (1) time for incorrect markings. |
| Satisfactory | The Contractor identifies all rights except subcontract or vendor rights at the beginning of award. | N/A | N/A | N/A | Marks all documentation supplied to the Government IAW FAR and DFARS provisions. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor more than once but no more than three (3) times for incorrect markings. |
| Marginal | The Contractor identifies all rights, but the Government finds errors in their submission. | N/A | N/A | N/A | Marks all documentation supplied to the Government IAW FAR and DFARS provisions. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor more than three (3) but no more than five(5) times for incorrect markings. |
| Unsatisfactory | The Contractor failed to properly or timely assert its rights (e.g. data, intellectual property, etc). | N/A | N/A | N/A | Marks all documentation supplied to the Government IAW FAR and DFARS provisions. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor more than five (5) times for incorrect markings. |
| Financial Reporting (PWS Para 1.8.2) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | All Contractor and Subcontractor data reported has correct work breakdown structure (WBS)/contract line item number (CLIN) elements, contract data requirement list (CDRL) format, and all data fields are expressed. | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | Contractor and Subcontractor data reports in correct CDRL format, has WBS/CLIN elements defined, all data fields are expressed. The Government provides only one notification to correct the data. | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | Contractor and Subcontractor data reports in correct CDRL format, has WBS/CLIN elements defined, all data fields are expressed. The Government provides two notification to correct the data. | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | Contractor and Subcontractor data reports in correct CDRL format, has WBS/CLIN elements defined, all data fields are expressed. The Government provides three notification to correct the data. | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | Contractor and Subcontractor data reports in correct CDRL format, has WBS/CLIN elements defined, all data fields are expressed. The Government provides four notifications or more to correct the data. | N/A | N/A |
| Government Furnished Property (PWS Para 1.9) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor reports Government furnished property (GFP) IAW DFARS 252.211-7007, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.64, and FAR 52.245-1. The Contractor is notified zero (0) times for noncompliance. | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor reports GFP IAW DFARS 252.211-7007, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.64, and FAR 52.245-1. The Contractor is notified one (1) time for noncompliance. | N/A |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor reports GFP IAW DFARS 252.211-7007, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.64, and FAR 52.245-1. The Contractor is notified two (2) times for noncompliance. | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor reports GFP IAW DFARS 252.211-7007, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.64, and FAR 52.245-1. The Contractor is notified three (3) times for noncompliance. | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor reports GFP IAW DFARS 252.211-7007, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.64, and FAR 52.245-1. The Contractor is notified four (4) times for noncompliance. | N/A |
| Security/ Information Systems (PWS Para 1.11 and 1.12) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor adheres to security requirements and provides documentation that shows compliance and no reported security violations. |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor adheres to security requirements and provides documentation that shows compliance. A maximum of one (1) reported security violation. |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor adheres to security requirements and provides documentation that shows compliance. A maximum of two (2) reported security violations. |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor adheres to security requirements and provides documentation that shows compliance. A maximum of three (3) reported security violations. |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor adheres to security requirements and provides documentation that shows compliance. More than three (3) security requirements or does not provide applicable security documentation. |
| System Safety and Health Hazards (PWS Para 1.13) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows MIL-STD-882E for health and safety, and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) manuals, and provides immediate notification of any issues. The Government does not have to unofficially notify the Contractor of any safety issues or HAZMAT compliance issues. |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows MIL-STD-882E for health and safety, and HAZMAT manuals, and provides immediate notification of any issues. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor of one (1) safety issue or HAZMAT compliance issue. |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows MIL-STD-882E for health and safety, and HAZMAT manuals, and provides immediate notification of any issues. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor of two (2) safety issues or HAZMAT compliance issues. |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows MIL-STD-882E for health and safety, and HAZMAT manuals, and provides immediate notification of any issues. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor of three safety issues or HAZMAT compliance issues. |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows MIL-STD-882E for health and safety, and HAZMAT manuals, and provides immediate notification of any issues. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor of four (4) safety issues or HAZMAT compliance issues. |
| Information Assurance (PWS Para 1.14) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows information assurance (IA) requirements. The Government does not have to unofficially notify the Contractor for any corrections. |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows IA requirements. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor for one correction. |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows IA requirements. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor for two corrections. |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor follows IA requirements. The Government has to unofficially notify the Contractor for three corrections. |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor does not follow IA requirements and/or the Government has to officially notify the Contractor for one or more corrections or unofficially for four or more corrections. |
| Program Management (PWS Para 3.1) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor provides a single program management focal point that accurately communicates all requirements. The single point of contact (POC) is able to able to accurately provide the Government with responses to the contract administrative, managerial, and financial inquiries. The program manager is able to provide both a summary level and detail description of status to the Government. The Program Manager is coordinating status with the Government daily and responds fully to same day inquiries. | The Contractor rigorously follows organizational conflict of interest (OCI) risk management plan and no OCI issues arise. |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor provides a single program management focal point that accurately communicates all requirements. The single point of contact (POC) is able to able to accurately provide the Government with responses to the contract administrative, managerial, and financial inquiries. The program manager is able to provide both a summary level and detail description of status to the Government. The Program Manager is coordinating status with the Government daily and typicall responds responds fully to inquiries within three (3) days. | The Contractor rigorously follows OCI risk management plan and one OCI issue arises and mitigation to correct the issue is within 24 hours |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor provides a single program management focal point that accurately communicates all requirements. The single point of contact (POC) is able to able to accurately provide the Government with responses to the contract administrative, managerial, and financial inquiries. The program manager is able to provide both a summary level and detail description of status to the Government. The Program Manager is coordinating status with the Government daily and responds fully to inquiries within one (1) week. | The Contractor rigorously follows OCI risk management plan and one OCI issue arises and mitigation to correct the issue is greater than 24 hours |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor proovides a single program management focal point that accurately communicates all requirements. The single POC is able to able to accurately provide the Government responses to the contract administrative, managerial, and financial inquiries. The program manager is able to provide both a summary level and detail description of status to the Government. The Program Manager is coordinating issues with the Government more than two (2) days after status or typically responds fully after two (2) weeks. | The Contractor rigorously follows OCI risk management plan and two OCI issues arise and mitigation. |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor provides a single program management focal point that accurately communicates all requirements. The POC is able to able to accurately provide the Government responses to the contract administrative, managerial, and financial inquiries. The program manager is able to provide both a summary level and detail description of status to the Government. The Program Manager is coordinating issues with the Government more than two (2) days after status or typically responds fully after more than two (2) weeks. | The Contractor rigorously follows OCI risk management plan and more than two OCI issues arise. |
| Meetings and Reviews (PWS Para 3.2) | |||||
| Excellent | Meetings and reviews provide highly relevant information, provide a clear agenda, provide clear decision points, and provide a synopsis of points. The Contractor is able to move forward significantly with the majority of topics. | N/A | N/A | The Government is typically provided an agenda minimum of one (1) business day prior to the meeting to allow Government review content of material, provides CDRLs on time. Updates to content a included in the meeting. Content is generally accurate and with minimal inconsistencies or apparent errors. | N/A |
| Very Good | Meetings and reviews provide relevant information, provide a clear agenda, provide clear decision points, and provide a synopsis of points. | N/A | N/A | The Government is typically provided an agenda before the meeting to allow Government review content of material, provides CDRLs on time. Content is generally accurate and with few inconsistencies or apparent errors. | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Meetings and reviews provide relevant information, provide a clear agenda, provide clear decision points, and provide a synopsis of points. Meetings and reviews provide relevant information, provide an agenda, provide decision points, and provide a synopsis of points. However, there are some areas of inaccuracy, insufficient detail in explanation or answers to questions, or unclear resolution. | N/A | N/A | The Government is typically not provided an agenda before the meeting, provides CDRLs on time. Content is generally accurate and with some inconsistencies or apparent errors and they are corrected quickly and provided to the Government. | N/A |
| Marginal | Meetings and reviews provide relevant information, provide a clear agenda, provide clear decision points, and provide a synopsis of points. However, information is scattered, not well presented, synopsis and decisions points are not clear. | N/A | N/A | The Government is typically not provided an agenda before the meeting, provides CDRLs on time. Content is generally accurate and with some inconsistencies or apparent errors and they are not corrected quickly and provided to the Government. | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Meetings and reviews do not provide relevant information, a clear agenda, decision points, or a synopsis of points. | N/A | N/A | The Contractor does not provides CDRLs on time or content is generally not accurate and with major inconsistencies or apparent errors. | N/A |
| Data Management (PWS Para 3.2.3) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor develops a Data Management solution that provides real-time access to data that is accurate, where audits and government checks of data accuracy always appear correct. Management, control and work flow parameters are nearly unbreakable. | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor develops a Data Management solution that provides real-time access to data that is accurate, where audits and government checks of data accuracy yield 1 or less failed audits. Management, control and work flow parameters are very well defined. | N/A |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor develops a Data Management solution that provides non real-time access to data that is accurate, where audits and government checks of data accuracy yield 3 or less failed audits. Management, control and work flow parameters are defined. | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor develops a Data Management solution that provides non real-time access to data that is accurate, where audits and government checks of data accuracy yield 5 or less failed audits. Management, control and work flow parameters are defined. | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | N/A | The Contractor develops a Data Management solution that provides non real-time access to data that is accurate, where audits and government checks of data accuracy yield 6 or more failed audits. Management, control and work flow parameters are not defined. | N/A |
| Earned Value Management (PWS Para 3.2.5) | |||||
| Excellent | 90% of discrete tasks are tracked with EVM. 10% are tracked as level of effort tasks. | Average monthly contract SPI is equal to or greater than 1.0 | Average monthly contract CPI is equal to or greater than 1.0 | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | 85% of discrete tasks are tracked with EVM. 15% are tracked as level of effort tasks. | Average monthly contract SPI is greater than 0.95 | Average monthly contract CPI is greater than 0.95 | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | 80% of discrete tasks are tracked with EVM. 20% are tracked as level of effort tasks. | Average monthly contract SPI is greater than 0.90 | Average monthly contract CPI is greater than 0.90 | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | 75% of discrete tasks are tracked with EVM. 25% are tracked as level of effort tasks. | Average monthly contract SPI is greater than 0.85 | Average monthly contract CPI is greater than 0.85 | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | 70% of discrete tasks are tracked with EVM. 30% are tracked as level of effort tasks. | Average monthly contract SPI is greater than 0.80 | Average monthly contract CPI is greater than 0.80 | N/A | N/A |
| System Technical Support (PWS Para 3.3.1) | |||||
| Excellent | Integration tasks exceed objective performance parameters (as determined by the Government or the Contractor). | All calls for reach back are responded to with the proper technical support within one (1) hour. The average for closing issues is one (1) day. | The Contractor team has all necessary skills to perform integration support. Estimated sustainment costs are reduced by a factor of 10%. | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | Integration tasks accomplish objective performance parameters. | All calls for reach back are responded to with the proper technical support within two (2) hours. The average for closing issues is three (3) days. | Estimated sustainment costs are reduced by a factor of 5%. | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Integration tasks accomplish threshold performance parameters. | All calls for reach back are responded to with the proper technical support within three (3) hours. The average for closing issues is one (1) week. | Estimated sustainment costs are expected to remain constant. | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | Integration efforts meet the accomplish threshold performance parameters with occasional issues not meeting threshold requirements | All calls for reach back are responded to with the proper technical support within four (4) hours. The average for closing issues is ten days. | Estimated sustainment costs are increased by 5%. | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Integration efforts do not meet threshold performance requirements. | All calls for reach back are responded to with the proper technical support within five (5) hours. The average for closing issues is greater than ten days. | Estimated sustainment costs increased by 10%. | N/A | N/A |
| Configuration Management (PWS Para 3.3.5) | |||||
| Excellent | The physical configuration audit (PCA) shows a 95% correlation with technical data. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | PCA shows a 90% correlation with technical data. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | PCA shows a 85% correlation with technical data. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | PCA shows a 80% correlation with technical data. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | PCA shows a 75% correlation with technical data. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Engineering Change Proposal (PWS Para 3.3.6) | |||||
| Excellent | Percentage of ECPs approved though first submission is 80%. | N/A | Average hours preparing each ECP is less than 25 hours. | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | Percentage of ECPs approved though first submission is 75%. | N/A | Average hours preparing each ECP is less than 40 hours. | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Percentage of ECPs approved though first submission is 70%. | N/A | Average hours preparing each ECP is less than 60 hours. | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | Percentage of ECPs approved though first submission is 65%. | N/A | Average hours preparing each ECP is less than 120 hours. | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Percentage of ECPs approved though first submission is 60%. | N/A | Average hours preparing each ECP is greater than 120 hours. | N/A | N/A |
| Test and Evaluation(PWS Para 3.3.11) | |||||
| Excellent | Test events adequately capture errors or failures and sufficient data is captured for near immediate resolution of issues or successful completion of tests. | All testing events are started and completed on schedule, including short notice test events to meet critical needs. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | Test events adequately capture errors or failures and sufficient data is captured for resolution of issues or successful completion of tests. | All testing events are started and completed on schedule. Some schedule errors may occur if the Contractor is provided in sufficient timing. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Test events generally capture errors or failures and sufficient data is captured for resolution of issues. However, tests sometimes need to be repeated for verification or recapture. | Test events are completed as required. Less than 10% of tests have issues resulting in a delay in schedule. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | Test events are often repeated, due to inadequate preparation or inadequate documentation requiring retesting. | More than 10% of test events are poorly prepared causing a an extension of the test or rescheduling. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Test events are not capturing the required information and engineering, logistics, and other issues persist throughout tests with minimal progress being shown. | Test events are generally not completed on schedule due to poor preparation and are not reported adequately to the Government. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Repair Parts and Spares (PWS Para. 3.4.3) | |||||
| Excellent | Materials provided exceeds historical mean time to failure metrics. The Contractor material purchase system is well established with demand analysis and ordering processes to minimize excess inventory. | Contractor has adequate parts on hand to exceed 95% Ao. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Materials provided meets historical mean time to failure metrics. The Contractor material purchase process leads to excess inventory for parts. | Contractor has adequate parts on hand to exceed 90% Ao, but less than 95% Ao. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Contractor does not provide materials needed or provides materials that do not meet the existing parts standards. | Contractor does not meet the 90% Ao requirement. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Above User-Level Maintenance (PWS Para. 3.4.4) | |||||
| Excellent | The Contractor is able to turn around 80% of above user level maintenance tasks within 72 hours. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | The Contractor is able to turn around 70% of above user level maintenance tasks within 72 hours. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | The Contractor is able to turn around 60% of above user level maintenance tasks within 72 hours. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | The Contractor is able to turn around 50% of above user level maintenance tasks within 72 hours. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | The Contractor is not able to turn around 50% of above user level maintenance tasks within 72 hours. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Shipping and Receiving (PWS Para. 3.4.5) | |||||
| Excellent | There are no significant mishaps in shipping such as damage to parts due to improper packing, improper routing, or regulatory non-compliance. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | There are two or less significant mishaps in shipping such as due to improper packing damage to parts, improper routing, or regulatory non-compliance. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | There are four or less significant mishaps in shipping such as damage to parts due to improper packing, improper routing, or regulatory non-compliance. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | There are six or less significant mishaps in shipping such as damage to parts due to improper packing, improper routing, or regulatory non-compliance. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | There are six or more significant mishaps in shipping such as damage to parts due to improper packing, improper routing, or regulatory non-compliance. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Reset (PWS Para 3.4.6) | |||||
| Excellent | The approved reset systems have zero deviations from the baseline. | Systems are reset in 140 depot flow days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | The approved reset systems have an average of one deviation from the baseline. | Systems are reset in 160 depot flow days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | The approved reset systems have an average of two deviations from the baseline. | Systems are reset in 180 depot flow days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | The approved reset systems have an average of three deviations from the baseline. | Systems are reset in 200 depot flow days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | The approved reset systems have an average of four deviations from the baseline. | Systems are reset in 220 depot flow days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Provisioning (PWS Para 3.4.8) | |||||
| Excellent | The Contractor projects to exceed the Government's requirements for updating and maintaining a provisioning parts list for AN/DSY-1(V)1 and AN/DSY-2(V)1 configurations. The Contractor maintains this list using PowerLog-J in LSAR 036 format. The Contractor maintains an accuracy rate of 100% as verified by sampling techniques and LMP tools. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | The Contractor projects to meet the requirement for updating and maintaining a provisioning parts list for AN/DSY-1(V)1 and AN/DSY-2(V)1 configurations that is acceptable to the government. The Contractor maintains 100% accuracy as verified by sampling techniques and LMP tools, and uses the correct format in PowerLog-J (LSAR 036). | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | The Contractor projects to complete updates and maintains a provisioning parts list in the correct format. The Contractor makes corrections to the PPL to ensure 100% accuracy as verified by sampling techniques and LMP tools, in a timely manner acceptable to the Government. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | The Contractor projects to makes corrections to the PPL to achieve a 100% accuracy rate as verified by sampling techniques and LMP tools, but updates are frequently submitted with mistakes. The PPL is consistently less than 100% accurate. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | The Contractor projects to demonstrate a plan that makes corrections to the PPL to achieve a 100% accuracy rate as verified by sampling techniques and LMP tools at a schedule and/or cost that is not acceptable by the Government. The Contractor demonstrates no ability to reach 100% accuracy. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Equipment Technical Manuals (PWS Para 3.5) | |||||
| Excellent | The Contractor's plan to develop and maintain technical manuals is coherent and IAW MIL-STD-40051-2B, MIL-STD-38784A, MIL-STD-2361C, MIL-HDBK-1222E, and AR 25-50. The Contractor demonstrates the ability to develop, update and maintain the Technical Manuals to represent the most current baseline configuration with few to no format and content mistakes. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | The Contractor's plan to develop and maintain technical manuals is coherent and IAW MIL-STD-40051-2B, MIL-STD-38784A, MIL-STD-2361C, MIL-HDBK-1222E, and AR 25-50. The Contractor demonstrates the ability to develop, update and maintain the Technical Manuals to represent the most common baseline configuration with some format and content mistakes. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | The Contractor's plan to develop and maintain technical manuals is coherent and IAW MIL-STD-40051-2B, MIL-STD-38784A, MIL-STD-2361C, MIL-HDBK-1222E, and AR 25-50. The Contractor demonstrates the ability to develop, update and maintain the Technical Manuals to represent the most current baseline configuration with some mistakes, but the ability to correct mistakes in a timely manner acceptable to the Government. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | The Contractor's plan to develop and maintain technical manuals is coherent and IAW MIL-STD-40051-2B, MIL-STD-38784A, MIL-STD-2361C, MIL-HDBK-1222E, and AR 25-50. The Contractor demonstrates the ability to develop, update and maintain the Technical Manuals to represent the most current baseline configuration with some mistakes, however it does demonstrate a good strategy to repair and fix content and Army format issues. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | The Contractor's plan to develop and maintain technical manuals is coherent and IAW MIL-STD-40051-2B, MIL-STD-38784A, MIL-STD-2361C, MIL-HDBK-1222E, and AR 25-50. The Contractor fails to demonstrate an acceptable plan to develop, update and maintain the Technical Manuals to represent the most common baseline configuration | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Training (PWS Para 3.6) | |||||
| Excellent | Trained operators can be rotated between PSS-T medium and PSS-T large systems. | The Contractor has trained operators who are deployable within 5 days to CONUS and/or 10 days to OCONUS locations, following Government notification. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Trainees can only support the PSS-T medium or PSS-T large systems; however, crew teams can provide support to both systems. | The Contractor has trained operators who are deployable within 10 days to CONUS and/or 15 days to OCONUS locations, following Government notification. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Trainees are not adequately prepared to support the PSS-T medium or PSS-T large systems. | The Contractor has trained operators who are deployable in more than 20 days to CONUS and/or 25 days to OCONUS locations, following Government notification. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Operations Support (PWS Para 3.7) | |||||
| Excellent | All metrics are adequately captured and provided to the Government. Operations support is able to capture all ad hoc report requests. The Government does not have to request additional information. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | All metrics are adequately captured and provided to the Government. Operations support is able to capture all ad hoc report requests. The Government has to request additional information inadequately presented or missing from less than 3 times. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | All metrics are adequately captured and provided to the Government. Operations support is able to capture all ad hoc report requests. The Government has to request additional information inadequately presented or missing from less than 5 times. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | All metrics are adequately captured and provided to the Government. Operations support is able to capture all ad hoc report requests. The Government has to request additional information inadequately presented or missing from less than 7 times. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | All metrics are adequately captured and provided to the Government. Operations support is able to capture all ad hoc report requests. The Government has to request additional information inadequately presented or missing from more than 7 times. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Operators / User Level Maintainers (PWS Para 3.7.1) | |||||
| Excellent | The Contractor successfully maintains operations to maintain an 95% operational availability defined by ready for tasking (hours)/(Total elapsed hours - weather downtime - battle damage downtime - directed downtime. | The Contractor is able to launch operations within 48 hours of arrival on site. | The Contractor provides level of effort costs for deployed systems. Costs have less than 4 percent deviation from system costs. | N/A | |
| Very Good | N/A | The Contractor is able to launch operations within 72 hours of arrival on site. | The Contractor provides level of effort costs for deployed systems. Costs have less than 8 percent deviation from system costs. | N/A | |
| Satisfactory | The Contractor successfully maintains operations to maintain an 90% operational availability defined by ready for tasking (hours)/(Total elapsed hours - weather downtime - battle damage downtime - directed downtime. | The Contractor is able to launch operations within 96 hours of arrival on site. | The Contractor provides level of effort costs for deployed systems. Costs have less than 12 percent deviation from system costs. | N/A | |
| Marginal | N/A | The Contractor is able to launch operations within 120 hours of arrival on site. | The Contractor provides level of effort costs for deployed systems. Costs have less than 16 percent deviation from system costs. | N/A | |
| Unsatisfactory | The Contractor does not successfully maintain operations to maintain an 90% operational availability defined by ready for tasking (hours)/(Total elapsed hours - weather downtime - battle damage downtime - directed downtime. | The Contractor is not able to launch operations within 120 hours of arrival on site. | The Contractor provides level of effort costs for deployed systems. Costs have more than 12 percent deviation from system costs. | N/A | |
| Drawdown and Surge Operations (PWS Para 3.8) | |||||
| Excellent | Equipment is recorded at all points as it is drawdown and property accountable and remains in the same condition throughout the period. | The Contractor is able to drawdown systems and personnel within 60 days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Very Good | Equipment is recorded at all points as it is drawdown and property accountable and generally remains in the same condition throughout the period. Seldom there are minor damages due to shipping. | The Contractor is able to drawdown systems and personnel within 75 days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Satisfactory | Equipment is recorded at all points as it is drawdown and property accountable and generally remains in the same condition throughout the period. Seldom there are damages due to shipping or items are improperly documented for minor parts. | The Contractor is able to drawdown systems and personnel within 90 days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Marginal | Equipment is properly drawn down; however, the condition of the listing of equipment being provided before and after drawdown is poorly constructed and damages to due shipment are unclear. | The Contractor is able to drawdown systems and personnel within 105 days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | Equipment is not drawdown per contractual direction. Drawdown items have major components missing or major damage has occurred due to packaging. | The Contractor is able to drawdown systems and personnel within 120 days. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Contract Deliverables (PWS Para 3.9) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | All CDRLs are delivered in accordance with their delivery schedule. | N/A | All Contract Deliverables are completed on time in the proper format and are marked appropriately. All data item elements are addressed. The Government does not have to provide additional direction after CDRL format is determined. | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | All CDRLs are delivered in accordance with their delivery schedule with the exception of 1 late CDRLs. | N/A | All Contract Deliverables are completed on time in the proper format and are marked appropriately. All data item elements are addressed. The Government has to provide additional information regarding the CDRL format or content no more than two times after format is finalized with the Contractor. | N/A |
| Satisfactory | N/A | All CDRLs are delivered in accordance with their delivery schedule with the exception of 2 late CDRLs. | N/A | All Contract Deliverables are completed on time in the proper format and are marked appropriately. All data item elements are addressed. The Government has to provide additional information regarding the CDRL format or content no more than four times after format is finalized with the Contractor. | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | CDRLs are sometimes late within two weeks or not provided. | N/A | All Contract Deliverables are completed on time in the proper format and are marked appropriately. All data item elements are addressed. The Government has to provide additional information regarding the CDRL format or content no more than six times after format is finalized with the Contractor. | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | CDRLs are sometimes more than two weeks late or not provided. | N/A | CDRLs are not provided IAW with their delivery schedule. | N/A |
| Travel (PWS Para 4) | |||||
| Excellent | N/A | N/A | Travel requests and vouchers have detailed trip information and cost breakdown and supplemental documents including receipts. | All travel requests are provided the to COR within one week of travel or notification for the travel is less than one week of travel within one day of notification. | N/A |
| Very Good | N/A | N/A | Travel requests and vouchers have detailed trip information and cost breakdown and supplemental documents including receipts. The Government has to request additional trip information supporting documentation less than one time. | All travel requests are provided the to COR within four days of travel or notification for the travel is less than four days of travel within one day of notification. | N/A |
| Satisfactory | N/A | N/A | Travel requests and vouchers have detailed trip information and cost breakdown and supplemental documents including receipts. The Government has to request additional trip information supporting documentation less than three times. | All travel requests are provided within one day of travel notification. | N/A |
| Marginal | N/A | N/A | Travel requests and vouchers have cost breakdown, however, it is not sufficiently broken out to see all individual cost elements. The Government has to request additional trip information supporting documentation less than five times. | Travel requests are generally not received until after the trip has started. | N/A |
| Unsatisfactory | N/A | N/A | Travel requests/vouchers are not received and/or provide insufficient cost details or information are provided and the COR has to request additional trip/cost information more than five times | Travel requests/vouchers are not received. | N/A |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .