DRFP Attachment 16 - Section M.pdf

FA910125RB001

Attachment 16

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4 October 2024

DRAFT

Facility Exhaust System

FA9101-25-R-B001

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and the Department of the

Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Part 5315, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 6, Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who demonstrates the greatest confidence that they will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the

Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one definitive contract for the Facility Exhaust System.

M-1.3 Competitive Advantage from use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP)

The Government will evaluate any competitive advantage resulting from the Offeror’s proposed use of GFP and make adjustment to Total Evaluated Price (TEP) IAW FAR 45.2 and 52.245-9.

M-1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23s153 file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23s153

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination, if during evaluation, the proposal is found to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the

Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation).

M-1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions

(except clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the

Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) later determines them to be necessary. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

PCO with the approval of the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to

ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of the

PCO’s judgment as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (e.g., within 2-10 business days) in responding to the PCO.

M-1.6 Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, which will be approved by the SSA. If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, whether for purposes of efficiency or otherwise, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon Offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subpart 15.505.

M-1.7 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

FPRs will be requested from those Offerors remaining in the competitive range when discussions have been concluded. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise its proposal. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the

FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-1.8 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The PCO shall review and determine whether the Offeror selected for award has addressed and resolved all OCIs in its OCI mitigation plans before making award. If an OCI is not adequately addressed or mitigated, the PCO reserves the right to notify the Offeror, and allow the Offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The PCO reserves the right to reject offers which do not adequately resolve all OCIs. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interest of the Government.

M-1.9 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and instructions contained in Attachment 6, Section L may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation). Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Design and Analysis Capability and Technical Resources

Subfactor 1.2: Manufacturing Capability

Subfactor 1.3: Integration Capability

Subfactor 1.4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Schedule Risk

Management

Subfactor 1.5: Contractor Statement of Work

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 4: Small Business

M-2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Except for the Small Business factor, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: The Technical factor is more important than either the Past Performance factor or Price.

The Past Performance factor is more important than Price. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and total evaluated price (TEP) and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. Within the Technical factor, all of the subfactors are of equal importance. The Small Business factor will be evaluated on an

“Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-2.5.1-1, and therefore is not included in the relative order of importance for the factors.

M-2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Factor will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s Design and Analysis Capability, Manufacturing Capability, Integration Capability, Schedule and Contractor Statement of Work.

M-2.2.1 Technical Rating

The Government will evaluate proposals for Technical subfactors 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 using the ratings described in Table M-2.2.1-1. The ratings described in Table M-2.2.1-1 focus on the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration (i.e., assign a significant strength or strength), for performance in excess of threshold requirements. The Government, in its discretion, may consider various performance concerns when evaluating risk (manifested in the form of weaknesses) associated with the submitted proposals. The risk evaluation considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight. Note: risk will not be separately rated.

Each subfactor will receive an independent rating that will not be rolled up into an overall rating.

However, a Technical rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more Technical subfactors will result in a proposal that is unawardable.

Table M-2.2.1-1: Combined Technical / Risk Rating Definitions

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple

M-2.2.1.1 Evaluation Finding Types

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements, including proposal significant strengths, strengths, excesses, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in Table M-

2.2.1.1-1).

Table M-2.2.1.1-1: Evaluation Finding Type Definitions strengths and / or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and / or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and / or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Finding Type Definition

Significant Strength An aspect of the proposal with appreciable merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

Meets Requirement Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding, meeting the minimum requirements.

Excess An aspect of the proposal that has exceeded mandatory minimums whose removal and corresponding price decrease may make an Offeror’s proposal more competitive.

M-2.2.2 Subfactor 1.1: Design and Analysis Capability and Technical Resources

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding and capability to design and analyze the

Facility Exhaust System effort identified in Attachment 1, Statement of Objectives (SOO), Attachment 2, Technical Requirements Document (TRD) and the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.2.1 Design Capability

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and the capability to design a steam boiler, steam ejector exhaust system, all associated utilities, all civil/structural design, and control systems per the requirements in the SOO.

M-2.2.2.2 Analysis Capability a comprehensive understanding and the capability to analyze a steam boiler, steam ejector exhaust system, all associated utilities, all civil/structural design, and control systems per the requirements in the SOO.

M-2.2.2.3 Technical Resources

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a list of the types of technical personnel, individual years of experience, and certifications, if applicable, which demonstrates its understanding and capability to design and analyze an exhaust system as described in the SOO.

M-2.2.3 Subfactor 1.2: Manufacturing Capability an understanding and the capability to fabricate a steam boiler, steam ejector exhaust system, all associated utilities, all civil/structural design, and control systems per the requirements in the

SOO.

Uncertainty An aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant

Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of the 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.

M-2.2.4 Subfactor 1.3: Integration Capability an understanding and the capability to install, integrate and check out a steam boiler, steam ejector exhaust system, all associated utilities, all civil/structural design, and control systems per the requirements in the SOO.

M-2.2.5 Subfactor 1.4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Schedule Risk

Management a realistic and logical integrated master schedule with events and timelines to successfully install, integrate, and checkout the Facility Exhaust System per the requirements in the SOO in addition to a realistic assessment of program risks.

M-2.2.5 Subfactor 1.5: Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Offeror proposes a comprehensive

CSOW, including Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) items, that clearly demonstrates the

Offeror will meet all requirements of the SOO and TRD.

M-2.2.6 Data Assertions

The Government will evaluate the degree to which any of the Offeror's asserted restrictions reflected in its completed Section K representation (DFARS 252.227-7017(d)) will inhibit successful accomplishment of the objectives specified in the SOO.

M-2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the

Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. Each Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence

Assessment (PCA) at the Past Performance factor level. The PCO shall seek recent and relevant past performance information (PPI) based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

M-2.3.1 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the

Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor and taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M-2.1.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in the proposals. In conducting the Past

Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA).

M-2.3.1.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the PPI will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least one year or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. PPI that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.3.1.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and

Price factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to efforts which are considered to be of the type and similar in contract scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the effort described in this solicitation.

The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

Scope: Relevancy in regards to scope includes those Technical subfactors identified in

M-2.2 and the Facility Exhaust System SOO and TRD.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the Facility Exhaust

System SOO and TRD. Efforts of less than $5M total contract scope will be considered

Not Relevant.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks / functions referenced in the Facility Exhaust System SOO and TRD in terms of the breadth of disciplines required, contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy rating will be assigned to each reference by evaluating relevancy against the

Technical subfactors and the tasks/functions described in the Facility Exhaust System SOO and

TRD. A relevancy determination of the Offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including JV partner(s) and major subcontractor(s). For purposes of proposals only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, that will perform 10 percent or more of the contract scope based on labor hours or total price. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices of the Offeror, unless the Offeror clearly details the proposed meaningful involvement of the Offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. Past performance examples from Offerors submitted from previous JVs may not be considered as relevant in terms of scope and complexity as those where the Offeror was wholly responsible for the cited work. Past performance examples from Offerors where 50% or more of the effort was performed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or major subcontractor may be considered more relevant in terms of scope and complexity than those where they were responsible for less than 50%.

The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The relevancy matrix and data obtained from other sources (see Attachment L-6) will be used to establish the relevance of present and past efforts. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table M-2.3.1.2-1: Past Performance Relevancy Definitions

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.

M-2.3.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the Offeror performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Each recent, relevant reference will be assigned a quality rating as defined in Table M-2.3.1.3-1. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all PPI available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table M-2.3.1.3-1: Quality Level Definitions

Quality Assessment Rating /

Color

Description

Exceptional (E) / Blue During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good (VG) / Purple During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory (S) / Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M) / Yellow During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U) / Red During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Not Applicable (NA) / White Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M-2.3.2 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated PCA rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, the resulting PCA rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The assessment process will result in an overall PCA of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table M-

2.3.2-1 below. Offerors with no recent / relevant performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the PCA than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Table M-2.3.2-1: PCA Definitions

Rating Description

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. 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.

M-2.4 Factor 3: Price

M-2.4.1 Price Evaluation

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of the Offeror’s price proposal for the

Facility Exhaust System. The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness,

(2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award.

M-2.4.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the Offeror’s Price volume for completeness and compliance with

Attachment 6, Section L-3.4 of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate both the Pricing

Sheet and accompanied Price Narrative for completeness.

M-2.4.1.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in

FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

M-2.4.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an Offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze Offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An Offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-2.4.1.4 TEP

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s price for all Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs), including any options.

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.

M-2.5 Factor 4: Small Business

M-2.5.1 Small Business Evaluation

M-2.2.5.1 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan to meet the

Minimum Quantitative Requirement of 20% of the total contract value for the participation of small businesses in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture (JV), teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

Table M-2.5.1-1: Small Business Factor Technical Rating Definitions

M-2.2.5.2 Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Small Business (after discussions if discussions are held) will result in a proposal that is unawardable.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Green Acceptable The proposed SBPCD meets all measures of merit.

Red Unacceptable The proposed SBPCD does not meet all measures of merit.