Attachment 0009 - Solicitation Tables - 10 October 2023.pdf
PDF 189 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W56KGY24R0001
About this file
This document provides tables outlining the requirements and evaluation criteria for a Department of the Army Materiel Command solicitation. The solicitation seeks proposals for the PM IS&A Intel Apps - Weather Operational Effects program to develop innovative technology solutions. Proposals must follow specific formatting guidelines and page limits for the Executive Summary, Commercial Item Assertions, Technical Factor, Price Factor, and Past Performance sections. The Technical Factor will evaluate the degree to which proposals demonstrate an exceptional approach to meeting requirements and containing strengths. Price and Past Performance factors will also be assessed. Combined risk ratings of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable will be assigned based on potential disruption to schedule, costs, or performance. Relevant past performance will be more highly rated. The solicitation number is W56KGY24R0001 and represents an opportunity from the Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop weather operational effects technologies.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
Attachment 0009 – Solicitation Tables
Table 1. Requirements for Submission of Proposal Materials
Volume Title File Name
MS
Word Versio n
MS
Excel
Versio n
MS
Power Point Versio n
Versio n
Doc Not Require d
Maximu m 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
“GLOSSERY” X* - - X* - N/a
Award Documents/
Certifications/ Representatio ns
“AWARDDOC_CERT_REP” X* X* - X* - N/a
Data
Assertions
“DATA_ASSERT” - X
- - - N/a
II Technical Factor (when applicable)
Project VISTA Innovative Technology
“PROJ_VISTA”- X* - - X* - 10
III Price Factor
TEP
Worksheet
“TOTAL_EVAL_PRICE” - X
- N/a
IV Past Performan ce
Past Performance
Record “PAST_PERF” X* - - X* - N/a
Table 2. Technical Adjectival Rating
Table 3. Combined Risk Ratings
Color Rating
Adjectival Rating Description
Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.
Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.
Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
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.
Adjectival Rating Definition
Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Moderate
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties
High
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.
Table 4. Project VISTA Innovative Technology Rating
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.
Rating Definition
Meets Proposal contains Project VISTA Innovative Technology
Does Not Meet (Neutral)
Proposal does not contain Project VISTA Innovative Technology.
The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Project VISTA Innovative Technology subfactor.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .