Attachment 0008 - Solicitation Tables_04 November 2021.pdf

Attachment 0008 – Solicitation Tables

Table 1. Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials

Table 2. Phase One Product Demonstration: Go/No-Go

Volume Title File Name MS Word Version

MS Excel Version

MS

PowerPoint

Version PDF Version Maximum

Page Count

I - Executive Summary - - - - - - -

Proposal Summary "PROP_SYN" X* - - X* 10 Commercial Item

Assertions "COMM_ITEM_ASSERT" X* - - X* N/A

Glossary of Abbreviations and

Acronyms

"GLOSSARY" X* - - X* N/A

Award Documents/ Certifications/

Representations

"AWARDDOC_CERT_REP" X* X* - X* N/A

Commercial Plan or Subcontracting Plan** "CP" or "SBP" X* - - X* N/A

Data Assertions "DATA_ASSERT" - X - - N/A

II - Technical Factor Technical Solution Oral Presentation "TECH_PRESENTATION" - - X - 15***

III - Price Factor TEP Worksheet "TOTAL_EVAL_PRICE" - X - - N/A

IV - Past Performance Past Performance Record "PAST_PERF" X* - - X* N/A

Adjectival Rating Definition

Go

No-Go

Completes the thread steps as aligned to the PRD requirements, stated in the Phase I Product Demonstration Event Plan (Attachment 0005) Appendix A.

Does not complete the thread steps as aligned to the PRD requirements, stated in the Product Demonstration Event Plan (Attachment 0005) Appendix A.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Table 4. Technical Findings Definitions

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 6. Past Performance Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

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

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluation favorable or unfavorable on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Table 6. Small Business Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets submission requirements in accordance with FAR 52.219-9(d)

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements in accordance with FAR 52.219-9(d)