W900KK23R0005_Attach_21_CBID_III_Compliance_Matrix_20230113.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-23-R-0005
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 56 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
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 | |||
| Sub-element 1 | M.7.1 Sub-element 1 evaluates the soundness and applicability of the Offeror’s proposed processes and current VACR IMI & AEC Program Management capabilities with an emphasis on the following… | L.7.7.2.1 This Sub-element 1 evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities for VACR IMI & AEC Program Management. The Offeror shall present their technical approach to managing the effort, resources, facilities, equipment, and personnel that will be necessary to complete tasks in the VACR IMI & AEC PWS as follows... | CBID III Base Contract PWS and Sample TO VACR PWS Para |
3.1.2 Program/Project Management
3.1.3 Conferences, Reviews, and Milestones
3.3 Management Capabilities:
6.1 Security Program Requirements
6.3 Cybersecurity
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
3.1.2.4 Project Planning Chart
3.1.6 Data Preparation and Management
6.3.8 Training and Certification
6.2 Information Assurance (IA) SECURITY: Integrated Master Schedule, DI-MGMT-80507C Technical and Management Work Plan, DI-MGMT-81117 Management Plan, DI-MGMT-80004A Test Plan And Test/Inspection Report, DI-NDTI-80809B Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report, DI-MGMT-80227 Presentation Material, DI-ADMIN-81373 Conference Agenda, DI-ADMN-81249A Conference Minutes, DI-ADMN-81250A Technical Videotape Presentation, DI-MISC-81275 Scientific and Technical Report, DI-MISC-80711A Equipment Inventory Records, DI-ILSS-81251 Commercial Off-The Shelf Manuals, DI-TMSS-80527A Computer Programming Manual, DI-IPSC-81447A Software User Manual, DI-IPSC-81443A Training Equipment Summary, DI-MISC-81184
| FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH | |||
| Sub-element 2 | M.7.2 Sub-element 2 evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities for VACR IMI Courseware development. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether Offeror demonstrates an understanding of overall VACR IMI Courseware development and the capability to do so. Evaluation of this Sub-element will consider... | L.7.7.2.2 This Sub-element 2 evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities for IMI Courseware development. The Offeror will provide information to substantiate the following: | 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 Technical Report Study/Services, DI-MGMT-80508B
| FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH | |||
| Sub-element 3 | M.7.3 Sub-element 3 evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities for VACR AEC development. The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’… | L.7.7.2.3 This Sub-element 3 evaluates the Offeror’s capabilities for VACR AEC development. The Offeror will provide information to substantiate the following… | 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 | Delivery of Training Materials, DI-ILSS-80872 | |
| FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE | M.8.1 Recency. The Government will first conduct a recency assessment of the submitted past performance efforts. |
“Recent” past performance is past performance that is still in progress or completed within three years from date of solicitation issuance. Offerors shall not provide past performance information on contracts or efforts that concluded more than three years prior to the CBID III solicitation issuance date...
M.8.2 Relevancy. Following confirmation of recency, the Government will review the proposed projects relevance utilizing Table 3. (See M.6.3)
To be considered relevant, past performance shall be similar in scope, magnitude...
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 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.
L.8.2.1 ...For evaluation purposes similar in magnitude is defined as contracts/orders valued between $1 million and $2 million. Complexity is defined as contracts/orders with a period of performance between 12 months and 24 months. ... 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 | Technical Report Study/Services, DI-MGMT-80508B | |||
| M.8.3 Quality. The Government will then review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment (FAR 15.304(c)(2)). In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings from Table 4. (See M.6.4)To determine performance confidence, the Government will consider the following... | L.8.8.2.5 The Government reserves the right to contact and use information provided by the references and any other sources available to conduct a past performance evaluation. To ensure inclusion of all references in the evaluation process, the Offeror is encouraged to provide the Government with the most current data on each reference. Please note that any references provided on classified contracts cannot be verified. | 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… | L.8.8.2.7 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. However, the names of individuals providing the information shall not be disclosed. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). |
| L.8.8.2 Section 2 - Past Performance Contracts | FAR 15.306 Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals | ||
| M.8.5 In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be rated as Neutral Confidence, having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation. | L.8.1 Definitions |
...The Government will not consider past performance on a newly awarded contract or effort (prime or subcontract), without a performance history of at least one (1) year due to the limited performance history of these efforts...
L.8.8.2.7 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. However, the names of individuals providing the information shall not be disclosed. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) Proposal Evaluation FAR 15.306 Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals
| M.8.6 When a small business prime contractor submits projects for consideration but fails to provide at least one of the projects that they themselves performed (as a prime contractor, predecessor company, Major Subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) partner), it will result in the Offeror being rated as Neutral Confidence. For JV prime contractors, the one project must come from the JV or at least one of the JV partners. | L.8.8.1.1 ... If the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent company’s meaningful involvement in the performance of the resultant contract, the effort will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated and may result in an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating... | |
| M.8.7 Although the SSEB may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably regarding past performance, a strong record of relevant past performance (prime, then Subcontractors, lastly officer/employee) may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff. | L.8.8.2.1 Using a tabular format like that provided in Section J, Attachment 22 (CBID III List of Past Performance Contracts), Offerors shall provide a summary of up to three (3) Government or commercial contracts, or Task/Delivery Orders under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract that are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. These contracts, for Offerors, JV partners, and Major Subcontractors, can be on-going or completed during the past three years. Contract data concerning the Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed JV Partner and then Major Subcontractor(s). Once again, the Offeror’s submittal is limited to a total of three (3) each Past Performance examples that may consist of a combination of contracts, or orders describing efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to CBID III program requirements for Interactive Multimedia Instruction courseware and Automated Electronic Classrooms (AECs). | |
| M.8.8 Past performance evaluation criteria provides the Government an opportunity to assess an Offeror with a better record, additional credit, or weight, when comparing past performance as a part of an award decision. For example, an Offeror with less than three past performance examples similar to CBID III in scope, complexity and magnitude may provide a greater degree of confidence as a predictor of future performance when compared to another Offeror with three examples of relevant past performance that are more complex, or of greater magnitude but lack effort for the delivery of critical supplies and services. | L.8.2.8 An explanation shall be provided when three examples of recent, relevant past performance similar in scope, complexity and magnitude are not available, or in each case where a SDVOSB prime contractor, JV partners, and Major Subcontractors do not have any recent and relevant past performance. Failure to provide the past performance information requested, or the required explanation when there is no recent and relevant past performance, shall result in a determination the proposal is non-compliant, and the Offeror being removed from consideration for an award at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. | |
| 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.9.0 PRICE – VOLUME III (FACTOR 3) |
| The Government’s price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The price evaluation will include the Offeror’s TEP, price reasonableness, 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.2.11.1 In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1... 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 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated using the RFP Section J, Attachment 29, Price Workbook under the “TEP” worksheet of the Price Workbook. L.9.0 PRICE – VOLUME III (FACTOR 3)
The Government’s price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The price evaluation will include the Offeror’s TEP, price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing… RFP Section J, Attachment 29, Price Workbook FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques
| M.9.3.1 The resulting total price for the Initial TO Price, and the Total Labor Price in each Ordering Period worksheet will be combined for evaluation purposes. This total will be used as the TEP for each Offeror. | L.9.1.1 For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price is defined as that which is calculated in the “TEP” worksheet of the Price Workbook. The TEP will not include CLINs that are identified as NSP, TBD, or N/A. | |
| M.9.3.2 The TEP is for evaluation purposes only. The Government does not guarantee that the actual labor requirements will match those listed in the RFP Section J, Attachment 29, Price Workbook. The cumulative total of all TO/DOs awarded against the IDIQ contract may not exceed $49,300,000 over the life of the IDIQ contract. | L.9.1.1 For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price is defined as that which is calculated in the “TEP” worksheet of the Price Workbook. The TEP will not include CLINs that are identified as NSP, TBD, or N/A. | RFP Section J, Attachment 29, Price Workbook |
| M.9.4 Price 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.9.0 PRICE – VOLUME III (FACTOR 3) |
| The Government’s price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The price evaluation will include the Offeror’s TEP, price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing… | FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques | ||
| M.9.5 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.9.1.3 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 and the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.... | ||
| M.9.6 Total Compensation Plan. The Government will evaluate the Total Compensation Plan IAW FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The Government will evaluate the plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work... | L.9.2.9.1 Offerors shall submit a single, comprehensive Total Compensation Plan, in PDF and/or Excel format, setting forth base salaries separated by fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-46. The Total Compensation Plan shall include details regarding the prime contractor, major subcontractors, and joint venture partners as applicable... |
| L.9.2.9.4 In addition, the Table below must be completed by all Prime and Major Subcontractors Offerors as part of its Total Compensation Plan... | 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees | ||
| M.9.7 Responsibility Determination. The Government may use information included in the price proposal as well as information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation… | L.2.17 Financial Responsibility. |
The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime Offeror. The Prime Offeror must be deemed financially responsible by the PCO.
L.9.2.10 SF Form 1408
| The Government will be requesting the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) perform Financial Capability Surveys of all Offerors... | Standard Form (SF) 1408, Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Attachment 30) | ||
| FACTOR IV: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION | M.10.1 Volume IV itself is not evaluated. For an Offeror to be eligible for an award, their proposal shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in CBID III solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005. | L.10 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION – VOLUME IV |
For an Offeror to be eligible for an award, their proposal shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in CBID III solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005. Alternate proposals are not permitted, and the solicitation shall not be altered. If an Offeror proposes assumptions, or conditions that conflict with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation the Offeror’s proposal shall be considered non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration for award at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.
M.10.2 Responsibility
The PCO will conduct a responsibility determination IAW FAR 9.103, FAR 9.104 (standards to be determined responsible), and FAR 9.105-2. 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.2.17 Financial Responsibility.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime Offeror...
L.9.2.10 SF Form 1408
The Government will be requesting the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) perform Financial Capability Surveys of all Offerors...
L.10.10 Representations and Certifications
The Offeror shall complete the fill-ins and provide any appropriate signatures without modification to the sections to include, but not limited, to those identified below...
L.10.13 Corporate Guaranty Agreement.
If applicable, the Offeror(s) shall disclose information pertaining to any proposed JV, mentor- protégé and/or subsidiary agreement...
L.10.14 Determination of Responsibility
The PCO will conduct a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR 9.103, FAR 9.104 (standards to be determined responsible), and FAR 9.105-2. 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. Section I, Contract Clauses Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors 52.204-8 Annual Representation and Certifications (MAY 2022) 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (OCT 2018) Standard Form (SF) 1408, Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Attachment 30) DCMA Form 1620 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: 13 Jan 2023
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 .