Evaluation Ratings and Definitions.pdf
PDF 141 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Z1DA--Madison MATOC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C25221R0070
About this file
This document provides evaluation ratings and definitions for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract solicitation from the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 12. The solicitation seeks construction services for maintenance, repair, alteration, and new construction projects ranging from $2,000 to $7 million each at the Wm S. Middleton VA Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Awards will be made to multiple contractors through indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a maximum value of $40 million each. Evaluation criteria include ratings for technical factors and past performance, defined as exceptional, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. The solicitation is set aside 100% for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and will be posted on June 1, 2021.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 19
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
“ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT 36C25221R0070 – 0002”
EVALUATION DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS
DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS FOR TECHNICAL FACTORS
RATING DEFINITION
Exceptional Contains one or more considerable strengths. Weaknesses, if any, are of small impact. There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.
Good Contains one or more strengths and few weaknesses. There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.
Satisfactory Contains little or no strengths and some weaknesses but contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.
Marginal Contains one or more significant weaknesses. Any significant weaknesses are correctable without major revisions to the proposal.
Unsatisfactory Contains significant weaknesses and one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or complete rewrite of the proposal.
DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION
Low Performance Risk Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work.
Moderate Performance Risk
Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work.
High Performance Risk
Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work.
Unknown Performance Risk
No recent and relevant performance record is identifiable, so no risk rating can be reasonably assigned.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .