Attachment_2_Evaluation_Ratings.pdf

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS:

i. Outstanding: The offeror has an excellent understanding of the requirements and proposes an approach that significantly exceeds minimum performance and/or capability requirements in a very beneficial manner to the Government. Proposal contains several significant strengths and no identified deficiencies, or significant weaknesses. The offeror will have an excellent probability of success with a very low degree of risk.

ii. Good: The offeror has a high quality in most respects to the requirement and meets and in some instances exceeds the minimum performance and/or capability requirements in beneficial manner to the Government. Proposal contains some significant strength. The offerors proposal does not contain deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and identified weaknesses do not impact their successful contract performance. Good probability of success with a low degree of risk.

iii. Acceptable: The offeror has acceptable quality and meets the minimum performance and/or capability requirements necessary for satisfactory contract performance. The offeror’s proposal may contain some strength. The offeror’s proposal does not contain deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and any identified weaknesses do not impact the probability of meeting minimum requirements. Fair probability of success with moderate degree of risk.

iv. Marginal: A proposal that satisfies most but not all of the Government’s performance and/or capability requirements and/or in some instances fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the feasibility of a proposed approach. The proposal contains weaknesses (to possibly include significant weaknesses) and/or some deficiencies, but the overall approach is sufficiently sound that the weaknesses and/or deficiencies may be corrected without a major rewrite of the proposal. Low probability of success with a high degree of risk. Note: An offeror with a final rating of Marginal is not eligible for award.

v. Unacceptable: The offeror’s proposal significantly fails to meet the minimum performance and/or capability requirements necessary for satisfactory contract performance. Where discussions are contemplated, the proposal contains weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies that cannot be corrected without a major rewrite of the offeror’s proposal. Very low probability of success with a very high degree of risk. Note: An offeror with a final rating of Unacceptable is not eligible for award.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

i. Relevancy: The following definitions will be used for the relevancy ratings:

a. Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

b. Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the

d. Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the

e. Neutral: No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

ii. Past Performance Assessment: The following definitions will be used for the past performance assessment ratings:

a. Outstanding: The majority of sources of information indicate that the quality of the Offeror’s past performance was consistently outstanding.

b. Excellent: The majority of sources of information indicate that the quality of the

Offeror’s past performance was consistently excellent.

c. Adequate: The majority of sources of information indicate that the quality of the Offeror’s past performance was consistently above Marginal.

d. Marginal: The majority of sources of information indicate that the quality of the offer’s past performance was Marginal or below.

e. Not Observed: The majority of sources of information indicate that the quality of the Offeror’s past performance was not observed or not available.

iii. Confidence: The following definitions will be used for the confidence ratings of the Past Performance factor (Factor 2):

a. Substantial: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

b. Satisfactory: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a satisfactory expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

c. Limited: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

d. No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Note: An offeror with a final rating of No Confidence is not eligible for award.

e. Unknown: No relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.