Attachment 7__Evaluation Scoring Rubrics.docx

Evaluation Factors #1 through #4 Methodology The following adjectival ratings, and their definitions, will be used to evaluate each of the technical factors:

EXCEPTIONAL. The response exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government. The offeror has convincingly demonstrated an outstanding, effective, efficient, and economical solution.

VERY GOOD. The response fully meets the requirements and has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the Government.

GOOD. The response meets the requirements. The response may contain weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that are correctable. If any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses are noted, they should not seriously affect the offeror's performance.

MARGINAL. The response marginally meets the minimum evaluation standard. The response contains weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses and may contain deficiencies. If deficiencies exist, they may be correctable. A moderate risk exists that the offeror will not be successful.

UNACCEPTABLE. The response fails to meet a minimum requirement or contains a major deficiency or major deficiencies. The response is incomplete, vague, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unacceptable. The deficiency or deficiencies is/are uncorrectable without a major revision of the proposal.

Evaluation Factor #5 Past Performance – Performance Confidence Assessment

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the contract requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying surveying services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

The SSEB will evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process will gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

At the end of the performance confidence assessment, based on an assessment of all the past performance information that was reviewed, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table.

Performance Confidence Assessment

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.