Attach G-Scoring Rubric.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EYNF Facilities Maintenance & Construction IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 12445223R0019
- Issued by
- Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This document contains a scoring rubric and guidelines for evaluating proposals submitted in response to solicitation number 12445223R0019 for facilities maintenance and construction services. Key details include:
The scoring rubric defines strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and clarifications in proposals. It also provides relevancy ratings and adjectival ratings ranging from Outstanding to Unacceptable to assess proposals. The related federal contract opportunity is for indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity facilities maintenance and construction services issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The solicitation number is 12445223R0019 and the opportunity is titled EYNF Facilities Maintenance & Construction IDIQ.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
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
Strength/Weakness
· A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.
· A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.
· A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
· A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
· A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
· A clarification is defined as limited exchanges between the Government and offerors, for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.
Relevancy Ratings
| Rating |
| Definition |
| 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. |
Adjectival Rating
Description
| Outstanding |
| Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements; significantly exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths, exceptional feature, or innovation that should substantially benefit the Government; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies; has a very high probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low. |
| Good |
| Proposal indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements; exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths and/or minor strengths, features, or innovation that should benefit the Government; weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths; no deficiencies are noted; has a better than average probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is very low |
| Satisfactory |
| Proposal meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are few, if any, strengths or features to benefit the Government; has an average probability of success; weaknesses are offset by strengths and/or can be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Marginal |
| Proposal has demonstrated a superficial or vague understanding of the requirements; fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are weaknesses that cannot be offset by strengths and cannot be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal lacks understanding of the requirements; fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist; proposal needs major revisions; the risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .