18_RFP_Attachment_5_BVTO_Eval_TAble_w_Full_PP_Rating.docx

Table 1. Combined Technical/Management and Risk Ratings

approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process

Deficiency is 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.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.