Attach 25 Evaluation tables.docx

Attachment 25: Evaluation Tables

Evaluation Tables

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Table 2. Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process

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

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal/quotation is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal/quotation that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal/quotation for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal/quotation or inconsistencies in the proposal/quotation indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal/quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

TABLE 6 . SCRM PLAN RATINGS