RFP Amendment 2 - Attachment 9 - Evaluation Tables.docx

Table 1: Rating for Factor 1 – Acceptable/Unacceptable

Table 2: Rating for Factor 2, Subfactors 1 – 4, Technical/Management - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings*

*The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings

Table 3: Risk Rating Descriptions Relating to Table 2

Table 4: Definitions Relating to Table 2

Definitions Relating to the Technical/Management 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. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during 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 with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Table 5: Rating for Factor 2, Subfactor 5 –Technical/Management – Small Business Participation Plan

Table 6: Past Performance Relevancy Definitions**

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

** The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant present/past performance. For each instance of past performance, the evaluators will first determine if the individual effort meets the recency definition set forth in the RFP. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. However, if any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated.

For each instance of an offeror’s past performance that meets the recency timeframe, the evaluators will then assess relevancy of that instance of past performance. In this part of the evaluation, the evaluators assess a relevancy rating utilizing the above definitions (Table 3, above) focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Technical/Management subfactors. Evaluators do not assess an overall relevancy rating at the Factor level. Further, the Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

Table 7: Performance Quality Assessment***

Quality Assessment Rating

Description

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.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

*** Performance Quality Assessment. After recency and relevancy has been determined, the Government will assess the quality of each of the referenced past performance efforts. The quality assessment may consist of an evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Table 8: Performance Confidence Assessments

(ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR THE PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR) ****

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.

**** As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments, the Government evaluation team will then assign an integrated performance confidence assessment rating from Table 5 above. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown 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.