Attachment_N_-_Evaluation_Factor_Guides_0004.pdf
PDF 161 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140F0222R0015
About this file
This document provides evaluation factor guides for solicitation number 140F0222R0015 from the Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2. The solicitation seeks proposals for rehabilitation of the Tomahawk Dam at the ND-Valley City Wetland Management District.
The guides establish the evaluation criteria and rating scales that will be used to assess technical proposals. Table 1 defines numeric ratings from Outstanding to Unacceptable that will evaluate an offeror's approach and understanding of requirements as well as risk of unsuccessful performance. Table 2 rates past performance relevancy as Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant based on the scope, magnitude and complexities of previous efforts. Table 3 assigns confidence levels of Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited or No Confidence in an offeror's ability to successfully perform based on its recent, relevant past performance record. Unknown Confidence is used if insufficient past performance information is available.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
The following Guides are hereby incorporated in the RFP 140F0222R0015 under Section M -
Evaluation Factors For Award, Sub-section B – Factors To Be Evaluated, Paragraph1 –
Technical Non-Pricing Evaluation Factors as Sub-Paragraph e.
e. EVALUATION RATING GUIDES
a. Table 1: Numeric/Adjective Rating
ADJECTIVE
RATING
DESCRIPTION
Outstanding - O
Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Above Average - AA
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.
Average – A
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Marginal – M
Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Unacceptable - U
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 un-awardable.
b. Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Past Performance factor, as it pertains to relevancy:
Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating Description
Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.
c. Table 3: Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Past Performance factor, as it pertains to confidence:
Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating Description
Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
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
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence
(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 reasonably assigned.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .