Evaluation_Ratings.pdf

EVALUATION RATINGS TABLE

Outstanding Technical Capability: The written information provided for the product/services demonstrates that the firm would exceed the desired performance requirements, and the excess is beneficial to the Forest Service. Probability of success is high. The exceptional features and innovations are worthwhile, and provided increased assurance that the proposed product would not only completely meet the expectations of the Forest Service, but exceed them.

Relevant Past Performance: Offeror has a history of delivering products and services of high quality. High quality is considered in terms of great customer satisfaction, no instances of rework and/or deficiency reports, and no late deliveries. Offeror has demonstrated success in exceeding past SB, SDB, and WOSB utilization goals; or, in the absence of SB subcontracting plans, has demonstrated significant small business participation in past contract performance, where SB subcontracting is deemed to be possible. There is no risk anticipated with timely delivery of a quality product, or of any degradation of performance based upon offeror’s past performance. Past success in meeting small business utilization goals indicates a strong possibility that the contractor will commit to small business performance under the contract.

Satisfactory Technical Capability: The written information provided for the product/service demonstrates that the firm would substantially meet the performance requirements set forth in the RFP/RFQ. The offeror shows a comprehensive understanding of the Forest Service’s requirements by proposing a product/service, which meets the RFP/RFQ requirements.

Relevant Past Performance: Offeror has a history of delivering products and services of satisfactory quality.

Satisfactory quality is considered in terms of moderate customer satisfaction, no to few instances of rework and/or deficiency reports, and no to few late deliveries. In those cases where there was rework, a deficiency report, and/or late delivery, mitigating circumstances such as rapid corrective response would allow for a satisfactory rating. The offeror has had past success in meeting small business utilization goals has been inconsistent; or, in the absence of SB subcontracting plans, has been able to demonstrate small business participation in past contract performance, where SB subcontracting is deemed to be possible. There is very little risk anticipated with timely delivery of a quality product, or of any degradation of performance based upon offeror’s past performance. Past success in meeting small business utilization goals may be inconsistent, but overall indications are that the company has a commitment to identifying and using small businesses in contract performance.

Marginal Technical Capability: The written information provided for the product/service shows that the firm can meet most of the performance requirements of the RFP/RFQ, with some risk. Deficiencies are considered correctable, and/or the offeror’s rating may be enhanced through additional clarification. The offer has the capacity of being made acceptable under the technical capability factor as a result of discussions, without extensive changes tantamount to the creation of a new offer.

Relevant Past Performance: The offeror’s past performance history demonstrates for the most part the company’s ability to satisfy customer needs and contract requirements. There may be some minor instances of customer complaint, but no indication that corporate practices and/or processes have been detrimental to the customer in the past. The offeror has consistently failed to meet past small business utilization goals; or, in the absence of SB subcontracting plans, is not able to demonstrate a meaningful number of past successes in small business utilization, where SB subcontracting is deemed to be possible. There may be some element of performance risk associated with inconsistent past performance ratings information.

Unacceptable Technical Capability: The written information provided for the product/service clearly fails to demonstrate that the offeror can meet explicit RFP/RFQ performance requirements. Deficiencies are considered to be so severe as to be incapable of correction through discussions without submission of what would equate to an entirely new offer. No reasonable chance of being selected for award.

Relevant Past Performance: The offeror’s past performance information clearly demonstrates a failure to meet past contract requirements and/or understand customer needs. Past contract performance has been deficient. The offeror has failed to meet a large number of past small business utilization goals; or in the absence of SB subcontracting plans, is not able to demonstrate any past successes in small business utilization, where SB subcontracting is deemed to be possible. It is a reasonable conclusion that the offeror’s performance under this contract would be detrimental to the Government. No reasonable chance of being selected for award.