J.06 Exhibit No 3 Technical Scoring Adjectives.pdf

Exhibit No. 3 Scoring Adjectives and Definitions

Technical Scoring Adjectives. The following adjectives will be used in evaluating the all technical factors and significant subfactors, except for past performance, and the technical proposal as a whole:

Exceptional: Exceeds the solicitation requirements and exemplifies a thorough understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timeliness and the highest quality performance is anticipated. Contains strengths, exceptional features, or innovations that should substantially benefit the project. There are no deficiencies and one or more significant strengths. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Very Good: Demonstrates good understanding of requirements that is anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency, productivity, or quality. May have one of more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Satisfactory: Demonstrates adequate understanding of solicitation requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal: Demonstrates superficial or vague understanding of the solicitation requirements. Has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. Only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable, contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

Unsatisfactory: Does not meet the solicitation requirements. There is at least one significant weakness and/or deficiency which indicates a failure to understand the solicitation requirements. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Past Performance Scoring Adjectives. The following adjectives will be used in evaluating past performance:

Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The Government has a high degree of confidence and no doubt that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance exceeds "Very Good."

Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The Government has a high degree of confidence that the

Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance exceeds "Satisfactory."

Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were, or appear to be, satisfactory. The Government has reasonable confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the solicitation.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. The Government is not confident that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance is less than "Satisfactory."

Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were, or appear to be, ineffective. The Government has no confidence that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Past performance is less than “Marginal.”

Neutral: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Definitions.

“Significant Strength” is an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

“Strength” is an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. (Simple adherence to the requirements of the solicitation is compliance and shall not be listed as a strength.)

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions will be considered a weakness.)

“Significant Weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions that results in an inability to evaluate factors and/or subfactors will be considered a significant weakness.)