Valid Eval Rubric (Version 2.0).pdf
PDF 451 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TACTICAL Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
- Solicitation number
- FA9451-24-S-0001
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria rubric for AFRL's TACTICAL/DETER/RAD program that defines how proposals will be assessed across four main evaluation categories. The evaluation criteria are weighted as follows: Technical Merit - Overall Science/Technical Merit (30%), Technical Merit - Soundness of Technical Approach (30%), Importance/Relevance to AFRL Programs (20%), and Value/Cost (20%).
The rubric provides detailed definitions and rating scales (Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, Superior) for specific evaluation elements within each category. Key elements include: problem definition, solution/product description, degree of innovation, risk mitigation, enabling technologies, technical personnel qualifications, facilities/resources, schedule reasonableness, alignment with topic areas, mission impact, and cost estimates. The criteria emphasize both technical excellence and practical feasibility, requiring proposals to demonstrate sound scientific basis, clear problem/solution alignment, realistic resource planning, and appropriate value proposition relative to costs and risks.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Page 1 of 2 ® 2011 - 2024 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.
AFRL DETER / TACTICAL / RAD - v2-0 Evaluation Criteria Defined
DEFINITION
TECHNICAL MERIT -
OVERALL SCIENCE /
TECHNICAL MERIT
PROBLEM BEING
SOLVED
What is the problem being solved or the capability gap being addressed for AFRL with the proposed solution? Demonstrate the depth of your understanding of the problem's components and stakeholders.
SOLUTION / PRODUCT
SUMMARY
Write a clear, concise description of your product or solution. Succinctly explain what your product or solution is and how it addresses the problem statement/capability gap. Provide the reviewers with a clear sense of the solution you are proposing, specifically highlighting all proposed deliverables.
DEGREE OF
INNOVATION
Describe what's innovative about your approach. How big of a departure from the state-of-the-art is your solution?
RISK MITIGATION Identify the primary drivers of technical, schedule and cost risk, along with the proposed methods to reduce or mitigate them.
ENABLING
TECHNOLOGIES
Do the required enabling technologies introduce added risk? Using mature or proven underlying technologies and techniques helps to lower technical risk.
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNICAL
APPROACHES
Convince a skeptical audience that yours is the best solution from a technical perspective. Your case is strongest when you convincingly refute the alternatives.
weight 30% RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE
Describe your relevant experience with similar work and/or with similar technologies. Explain how your previous work with relevant projects makes you an ideal candidate to accomplish the proposed solution.
TECHNICAL MERIT -
SOUNDNESS OF TECH.
APPROACH
SCIENTIFIC FEASIBILITY
Is the science behind the solution sound? Convince readers who don't have deep expertise in your field that your innovation is built atop sound scientific and engineering principles. Point to the foundational and proven technologies that you rely on to deliver your solution.
TECHNICAL
PERSONNEL
Briefly list and describe your core scientific and technical team. Do you have the people and technical capabilities you need to successfully complete your proposed project? If not, convince the reader you have a credible recruiting plan and can fill personnel gaps.
TECHNICAL FACILITIES
& RESOURCES
Briefly list and describe your technical facilities and resources. Do you have the resources and technical facilities you need to successfully complete your proposed project? If not, convince the reader you have a credible plan to attain the necessary facilities or resources to accomplish the proposed solution.
APPROPRIATENESS OF
MEASUREMENT
List the key performance indicators (KPIs) or technical performance measures (TPMs) that are most appropriate to measure your progress with this project. Prove these metrics are the most appropriate possible measurements of success for a project such as this one.
weight 30% REASONABLE
SCHEDULE
Provide a schedule for the proposed solution. The provided schedule should be realistic and reasonable for the proposed technical solution. It should include thoughtfully considered milestones.
IMPORTANCE /
RELEVANCE TO AFRL
PROGRAMS
SOLUTION ALIGNMENT Map your solution logically to one or more Topic Area(s). Does your solution directly addresses one or more research thrust identified within the Topic Area(s)?
IMPACT TO MISSION Define the impact or benefits gained with your proposed solution. Specify contributions to AFRL’s research and development within the Topic Area.
weight 20% VALUE OF
CONTRIBUTION
The proposed solution provides meaningful contributions which outweighs the risks.
VALUE / COST RELIABLE COST
ESTIMATE
Provide cost estimates that are complete, realistic and credible. Support them with verifiable data or analysis.
PROPOSED VALUE The benefit or impact of the proposed solution appropriately outweighs the costs.
weight 20% FUNDING AVAILABILITY If your proposal is of sufficiently high quality, our team will have to determine if it can realistically be funded with our available budget. If your proposal is on the high end of the budget guidelines, please do your best to identify partners from whom additional funding may be available.
XLS filename: AFRL - DETER, TACTICAL, RAD - v2-0.xlsx
VE SuperA name: AFRL DETER / TACTICAL / RAD - v2-0
Page 2 of 2 ® 2011 - 2024 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.
AFRL DETER / TACTICAL / RAD - v2-0 Evaluation Criteria
AFRL - DETER, TACTICAL, RAD - v2-0.xlsx UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY SUPERIOR
TECHNICAL MERIT -
OVERALL SCIENCE /
TECHNICAL MERIT
PROBLEM BEING
SOLVED
Undefined problem scope.
Somewhat defined problem scope.
Adequately defined problem scope.
Very well defined problem scope.
SOLUTION /
PRODUCT SUMMARY
Fails to describe intended solution.
Partly describes intended solution.
Adequately describes intended solution.
Clearly describes intended solution.
DEGREE OF
INNOVATION
No departure from existing technological approaches.
Slight departure from existing technological approaches.
Significant departure from existing technological approaches.
Radical departure from approaches.
RISK MITIGATION
Incomplete or incoherent risk and mitigation discussion.
Incomplete risk analysis.
Inadequate mitigation plans.
Adequate risk analysis.
Reasonable mitigation plans.
Thorough risk analysis.
Credible mitigation plans.
ENABLING
TECHNOLOGIES
Relies on nonexistent or unavailable technology.
Relies on emerging, cutting edge technology.
Relies on proven technologies.
Relies on commercially available or fielded technologies.
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNICAL
APPROACHES
No examination of alternatives.
Partially refutes alternatives.
Adequately refutes alternatives.
Persuasively refutes alternatives.
weight 30% RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE
Lacks experience with relevant technology.
Indirect experience supporting relevant projects.
Direct experience completing relevant projects.
Direct experience successfully completing relevant projects.
TECHNICAL MERIT -
SOUNDNESS OF
TECH. APPROACH
SCIENTIFIC
FEASIBILITY
No scientific basis for presented approach.
Incomplete scientific basis for presented approach.
Credible scientific basis for presented approach.
Convincing scientific basis for presented approach.
PERSONNEL
Existing team lacks essential personnel.
Gaps are high risk.
Existing team lacks important personnel.
Evolving plan for gaps.
Existing team is high quality and nearly complete. Credible plan for gaps.
Existing team is impressive and complete. No unresolved gaps.
FACILITIES &
RESOURCES
Existing facilities and resources insufficient.
Gaps are high risk.
Existing facilities and resources partially sufficient. Evolving plan for gaps.
Existing facilities and resources mostly sufficient. Credible plan for gaps.
Existing facilities and resources certainly sufficient. No unresolved gaps.
APPROPRIATENESS
OF MEASUREMENT
Fails to measure indicators of impact.
Poor measurement of indicators of impact.
Adequate measurement of indicators of impact.
Highly appropriate measurement of indicators of impact.
weight 30% REASONABLE
SCHEDULE
Unclear or non-credible project milestones, or timing.
Fairly clear, credible project milestones and timing. Mostly appropriate level of detail.
Mostly clear, credible project milestones and timing. Appropriate level of detail.
Completely clear, credible project milestones and timing.
Appropriate level of detail.
IMPORTANCE /
RELEVANCE TO AFRL
PROGRAMS
SOLUTION
ALIGNMENT
Not aligned with any of the Topic Areas.
Somewhat aligned with at least 1 of the Topic
Areas.
Aligned with at least 1 of the Topic Areas.
Perfectly aligned with at least 1 of the Topic
Areas.
IMPACT TO MISSION
If successful, no improvement vs.
existing technological approaches.
If successful, slight improvement vs.
existing technological approaches.
If successful, significant improvement vs.
existing technological approaches.
If successful, radical improvement vs.
approaches.
weight 20% VALUE OF
CONTRIBUTION
Expected contributions do not outweigh risks.
Expected contributions may outweigh risks.
Expected contributions outweigh risks.
Expected contributions substantially outweigh risks.
VALUE / COST RELIABLE COST
ESTIMATE
Incomplete cost estimates.
Unrealistic cost estimates. Credible cost estimates. Convincing cost estimates.
PROPOSED VALUE
Expected pay-off does not out-weigh proposed cost.
Expected pay-off may out-weigh proposed cost.
Expected pay-off out-weighs proposed cost.
Expected pay-off substantially out-weighs proposed cost.
weight 20% FUNDING
AVAILABILITY
Estimated cost exceeds available budget.
Estimated cost is within range of available budget.
Estimated cost is within available budget.
Estimated cost is well within available budget.
VE SuperA name: Superior
XLS filename: AFRL - DETER, TACTICAL, RAD - v2-0.xlsx
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .