W900KK23R0005_Attach_21_CBID_III_Compliance_Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Computer Based Instructional Development III (CBID III) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-23-R-0005
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Computer Based Instructional Development III (CBID III) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
CBID III
Factors/Subfactors SECTION M SECTION L SOW/PWS/SPEC/Contract REFERENCES CDRLs OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL (Vol, Section, Pg Nbr)
| FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH | |
| Subfactor 1.1 | M.7.1 Sub-Factor 1 – IMI Courseware Development |
The Government shall evaluate:
(a) The Technical Approach Volume demonstrates a thorough understanding of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) processes, Analysis, Design, Development, Production, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE), and the use of applicable toolsets, standards, methodologies, quality assurance (QA) plans to meet the requirements... L.7.6.1 IMI Courseware Development (Subfactor 1.1)
The Offeror shall describe...
Offerors shall identify specific toolsets, standards, and Instructional Systems Design (ISD) processes to develop learning solutions that conform to the PWS requirements, to include Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) and the following ISD activities: Analysis, Design, Development, Production, Implementation, and Evaluation. CBID III Base Contract PWS and Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.2 Technical Capabilities (Base)
3.6 Test and Evaluation (T&E) (Sample)
3.8 Technical Requirements (Base)
CBID III Base Contract PWS Para
4.7 Section 508 Compliance CDRL XXXX Technical Report Study/Services, DI-MGMT-80508B
| FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH | |
| Subfactor 1.2 | M.7.2 Sub-Factor 2 – IMI Program Management. |
The Government shall evaluate:
(a) The Technical Approach Volume articulates an organizational structure and procedures for effectively and efficiently managing work on the Sample TO IMI development and AEC effort, to include IMI contract administration, project management support, quality management, delivery, subcontractor management, and risk management... L.7.6.2 IMI Program Management (Subfactor 1.2)
The Offeror's shall:
(a) Describe in detail its proposed organizational structure and procedures for effectively and efficiently managing work for the Sample TO IMI development and AEC effort, to include IMI contract administration, project management support, quality management... CBID III Base Contract PWS and Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.1.2 Program/Project Management
3.1.3 Conferences and Reviews
3.3 Management Capabilities:
6.1 Security Requirements Compliance
6.3 Credentialing
CBID III Base Contract PWS
3.1.4 Data Preparation and Management
6.2 Access and General Protection
6.4 Security Training
6.5 Information Assurance (IA) SECURITY
Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.1.6 Data Preparation and Management
6.3.8 Training and Certification
6.2 Information Assurance (IA) SECURITY: CDRL A003 Integrated Master Schedule, DI-MGMT-80507C CDRL A006 Technical and Management Work Plan, DI-MGMT-81117 CDRL XXXX Management Plan, DI-MGMT-80004A CDRL B008, B011 Test Plan And Test/Inspection Report, DI-NDTI-80809B CDRL XXXX Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report, DI-MGMT-80227 CDRL A001 Presentation Material, DI-ADMIN-81373 CDRL XXXX Conference Agenda, DI-ADMN-81249A CDRL XXXX Conference Minutes, DI-ADMN-81250A CDRL XXXX Technical Videotape Presentation, DI-MISC-81275 CDRL B021 Scientific and Technical Report, DI-MISC-80711A CDRL XXXX Equipment Inventory Records, DI-ILSS-81251 CDRL XXXX Commercial Off-The Shelf Manuals, DI-TMSS-80527A CDRL XXXX Computer Programming Manual, DI-IPSC-81447A CDRL XXXX Software User Manual, DI-IPSC-81443A CDRL XXXX Training Equipment Summary, DI-MISC-81184
| FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH | |
| Subfactor 1.3 | M.7.2 Sub-Factor 3 – AEC Development Capability. |
The Government shall evaluate:
(a) The Technical Approach Volume clearly describes the material purchasing and configuration management for the AEC requirements and identifies procedures for designing and procuring feasible material solutions via Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS)... L.7.6.3 AEC Development Capability (Subfactor 1.3)
The Offeror's shall:
(a) Describe their technical approach to material purchasing...
(b) Identify their proposed procedures for designing and procuring feasible material solutions via Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) and identifying alternative sources (e.g., non-availability/supply chain issues)... CBID III Base Contract PWS and Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.5.1 Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) 3.3.7 Hardware
| 4.3 Materials | CDRL C003 Delivery of Training Materials, DI-ILSS-80872 | |
| FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE | M.8.1 Recency... Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Past performance within the five years prior to the solicitation release date will be considered recent past performance for the purposes of this solicitation. |
M.8.2 Relevancy... To be considered relevant, past performance shall be similar in scope and complexity to the CBID III effort, which includes systems engineering and technical support services, as defined in the CBID III PWS. Relevant magnitude means contracts with a comparable total value to the CBID III solicitation.
L.8.1 Definitions “Recency” is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.
“Relevancy” is measure of the extent of similarity between the supplies/services, complexity, dollar value, contract type, teaming arrangement, subcontracting or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. CBID III Base Contract PWS and Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.2 Technical Capabilities
CBID III Base Contract PWS
3.3.2 Systems Engineering
Sample TO VACR PWS Para
3.4.1 Systems Engineering
| FAR 15.304(c)(2) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors | CDRL XXXX Technical Report Study/Services, DI-MGMT-80508B | |||
| M.8.3 Confidence. The Government will review past performance information to determine the quality (see and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment... Each Offeror shall be assigned a rating in accordance with the Performance Confidence Assessment as indicated in section M.6.5 | L.8.11 The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and is free to use other sources such as other Federal Government offices, databases, and commercial sources, to assess past performance... or if no record of past performance is available for the project, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably but will be rated as neutral confidence on past performance for that project. | FAR 15.304(c)(2)) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors | ||
| M.8.4 The potential sources of Past Performance information for evaluation are as follows: |
(1) Past Performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited;
(2) Past Performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition (RFP Attachment 7-Past Performance Questionnaire); and
| (3) Past Performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to... | L.8.7.2.7 In accordance with FAR 15.306, the Offeror may be given the opportunity to discuss adverse past performance information obtained from any questionnaire if they have not previously responded through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar system... | |||
| M.8.5 In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance, or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of Past Performance... Although the SSEB may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence”... | L.8.11 The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror... if no record of past performance is available for the project, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably but will be rated as neutral confidence on past performance for that project. | FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) Proposal evaluation | ||
| FACTOR III: COST/PRICE | M.9.1 Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) total evaluated price (3) price fairness and reasonableness, and (4) unbalanced pricing. | L.9.2 Cost/Price Analysis. The Government’s price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for completeness and compliance with this section, price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing... | FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques | |
| M.9.2 There will be no price realism evaluation. Discussions are not anticipated. Offerors are highly encouraged to submit their best and final offer at the time of proposal submission. | L.2.12.1 In accordance with… Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms. | FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition |
FAR Subpart 15.306(a) Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals
| M.9.3 Completeness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price proposal for completeness. In order for a price proposal to be complete, it must comply with all requirements of the solicitation and any attachments and exhibits. Incomplete price submissions will not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition. | L.9.2 Cost/Price Analysis. The Government’s price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for completeness and compliance with this section, price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing... | FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques |
| M.9.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation... This total will be used as the TEP for each Offeror. | L.7.4.4 Price Workbook. The Offeror shall complete… For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is defined as that which is calculated in the “Total Evaluated Price” worksheet of the Price Workbook… Base Hourly Labor Rates. | FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services |
| M.9.4.1. The TEP will be calculated using the evaluated price as calculated against the estimated hours provided for each of the Ordering Periods (including 6-month extension) as well as the total price of the Initial TO. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only... | ||
| M.9.5 Price Fairness and Reasonableness. The TEP will be evaluated using the price proposal analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1. Although adequate price competition is expected in response to this solicitation any appropriate technique(s) may be utilized, which may include comparison to recognized national and regional compensation surveys. Adequate price competition is expected in response to this solicitation, normally resulting in a determination of a fair and reasonable price. | L.9.3.8 Certified Cost and Pricing Data. It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition; therefore, the Offeror is not required to provide certified cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the Offeror shall provide certified cost or pricing data as requested by the PCO. | FAR 15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306 A and 41 U.S.C. CHAPTER 35) |
FAR 15.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques
| M.9.6 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the Price Volume for the presence of unbalanced pricing. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. | L.9.3.7 Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors shall avoid presenting unbalanced pricing information. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items are significantly overstated or understated. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists... | |
| FACTOR IV: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION | M.10.1 Failure to comply with the following Section L subparts may result in the rejection of the Offeror’s proposal: |
L.6.4.1.5, Standard Form (SF) 33 & Amendments;
L.6.4.1.4, Statement of Compliance; and, L.6.4.1.8, Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Mitigation Plan, if applicable, Instructions. L.10.8 SF 33 & Amendments L.10.9 Statement of Compliance L.10.14 Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Mitigation Plan
SF 33 SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD
SF 30 AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(v) Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition
DD254 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CONTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
13 C.F.R. § 127.506 May a joint venture submit an offer on an EDWOSB or WOSB requirement?
FAR Subpart 9.5 Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest M.10.2 Responsibility
The PCO will conduct a responsibility determination... The Government may use information included in the proposal as well as information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation. Sources of information may include DCAA, DCMA, or various Government databases, in addition to other means. In accordance with FAR 19.602-1 Offerors that are deemed NOT responsible will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency (CoC). The following will also be considered as part of the responsibility determination. L.10.15 Determination of Responsibility
In accordance with FAR 19.602-1 offerors that are deemed NOT responsible will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency. FAR 9.103 Policy FAR 9.104 Standards FAR 9.105-2 Determinations and documentation FAR 19.602-1 Referral
Attachment 31 Solicitation #: W900KK-20-R-0011 Rev Date: 7 Feb 2020
Attachment 21 Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005 Rev Date: 4 Nov 2022
NCRC EPOS Full && Open Small Business Compliance Matrix Page &P of &N
CBID III
Business Compliance Matrix Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .