Generic_Adjectival_Ratings_for.docx

Generic Adjectival Ratings for Other Than Past Performance or Socioeconomic Participation Evaluation Factors Best Value Trade Off Acquisition

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for factors other than past performance or socioeconomic participation:

1. Excellent/Very Low Risk – An excellent proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the contract and program goals, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to performance of the program. In terms of the specific factor (or significant subfactor), the proposal contains one or more major strengths and no weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

1. Good/Low Risk – A good proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and no deficiencies exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

1. Fair/Medium Risk – A fair proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. There are no deficiencies, but one or more significant weaknesses or a combination of many weaknesses exist that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is medium.

1. Marginal/High Risk – A marginal proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. The proposal has multiple significant weaknesses and weaknesses but no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

1. Unacceptable/Very High Risk - An unacceptable proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. One or more deficiencies or a combination of significant weaknesses exist sufficient to indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very high.

Past Performance Evaluation Factors Best Value Trade Off Acquisition

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for past performance factors:

1. Excellent (High Confidence) – The overall assessment of the offeror’s/key personnel’s recent past performance reveals a sufficient quantity of highly relevant and high quality past performance. There is no doubt the offeror will successfully perform the effort required under the contract. The confidence of successful performance is evaluated as high.

1. Good (Significant Confidence) – The overall assessment of the offeror’s/key personnel’s recent past performance, in terms of relevancy, quality, and sufficiency reveals a past performance record in which there is little doubt the offeror will successfully perform the effort required under the contract. The confidence of successful performance is evaluated as significant.

1. Fair (Some confidence) – The overall assessment of the offeror’s/key personnel’s recent past performance, in terms of relevancy, quality, and sufficiency reveals a past performance record in which there is some doubt the offeror will successfully perform the effort required under the contract. The confidence of successful performance is evaluated as some.

1. Neutral – The overall assessment of the offeror’s/key personnel’s past performance, in terms of relevancy, quality, and sufficiency reveals the offeror has no relevant past performance record which may be effectively evaluated. The performance risk of the offeror is neutral. The contractor is rated neither good nor bad. The performance risk of the offeror is neutral.

(Note that, to obtain this rating, the offeror must specifically address the factor and either state it has no relevant past performance or the submitted past performance must be determined to not be relevant. Failure to address the factor in its entirety does not warrant this rating.)

1. Unacceptable (Low confidence) – The overall assessment of the offeror’s/key personnel’s past performance, in terms of recency, relevancy, quality, and sufficiency reveals a past performance record in which there is substantial doubt the offeror will successfully perform the effort required under the contract. This rating may also be due to the offeror failing to address the factor as required and no additional information is available. The confidence of successful performance is evaluated as low.

Socioeconomic Participation Evaluation Factor Best Value Trade Off Acquisition

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for socioeconomic participation factors:

1. Excellent

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an excellent rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing greater than 90% of the cost of labor with its own workforce. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB, the offeror will receive an Excellent Plus rating.

1. Good

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a good rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing 51-90% all of the cost of labor with their own staff, and at least 75% of the subcontracted work goes to other small businesses. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB will receive a Good Plus rating.

1. Fair

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a fair rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing 51-90% of the cost of labor with their own staff, but less than 75% of the subcontracted work goes to other small businesses. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB will receive a Fair Plus rating.

Or

The offeror is other than small and is subcontracting 40-49% of the total cost of labor to small businesses. Other-than-small offerors proposing to exceed the HUD subcontracting goals in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB will receive a Fair Plus rating.

1. Marginal

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a marginal rating:

The offeror is other than small and is subcontracting less than 40% of the total cost of labor to small businesses. Other-than-small offerors proposing to exceed the HUD subcontracting goals in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB will receive a Marginal Plus rating.

1. Unsatisfactory

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an unsatisfactory rating:

The offeror fails to submit a socio-economic participation plan that reflects that the offeror will perform at least 50% of the total cost of labor.

The offeror fails to submit compliant letters of commitment for subcontractors/teaming partners that are proposed to perform more than 10% of the total cost of labor to perform the requirements.

The offeror fails to address the factor.

Generic Definitions

In an effort to ensure that during the evaluation process all Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members are consistently using the terms “strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies,” the definitions below will be used for evaluation purposes.

1. STRENGTH – The proposal demonstrates capability, expertise, or knowledge which greatly increases the likelihood of the offeror’s successful contract performance.

1. WEAKNESS – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1. SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS – A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1. DEFICIENCY – 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.