A00001.pdf

Technical Evaluation Plan

Attachment A

Change Page 6 developed by the SEB’s assessment of the proposed approach to accomplishing the Mitigation objectives.

Adjectival Ratings only apply to the technical evaluation factors.

3.4 ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS:

Excellent The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a high probability of success under this factor and the proposal significantly exceeds all solicitation requirements regarding this factor. Offeror has clearly demonstrated an understanding of all aspects of the factor’s requirements. The Offeror’s proposal contains significant strengths that represent significant benefit to the Government in contract performance and the proposal would involve only minimal or no risk with regard to this factor. There are only minor weaknesses and no deficiencies. The highest level of contract performance can be expected with regard to this factor.

Good

The Offeror’s proposal fully satisfies all the requirements of the solicitation with regard to this factor, and exceeds some of the requirements. Offeror has demonstrated an understanding of most aspects of the requirements with regard to this -factor. The Offeror’s proposal contains strengths that represent a benefit to the Government in contract performance and the proposal would involve only minimal to moderate risk regarding this factor. There may be weaknesses but no deficiencies.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal meets the stated requirements of the solicitation with regard to this factor. Strengths and weaknesses approximately balance each other out. There may be significant weaknesses but no deficiencies. Although the proposal involves moderate risks, on balance, contract performance regarding this -factor is likely to be successful.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal is technically unacceptable. It has any deficiencies or significant weaknesses that would require a complete rewrite of the response to this factor in order to become acceptable. The proposal offers few, if any benefits to the government with regard to this factor and carries an unacceptably high risk of unsuccessful performance with regard to this factor.

The following rating scale applies to the -factors under factor 4 (Past Performance):

High

The company's past performance eon relevant projects was excellent or good in all or almost all of the applicable areas described in the past performance factor.

Medium

The company’s past performance on relevant projects, on balance, was satisfactory in the applicable areas described in the past performance factor, although there may have been corrected performance problems in some of the areas.

Technical Evaluation Plan

Attachment A

Change Page 7

Poor* *A poor rating requires the company to be given an opportunity to rebut the information that formed the basis for the rating.

The company’s past performance on relevant projects was not satisfactory, because of performance problems in applicable areas described in the past performance factor.

Neutral

No relevant past performance is available for evaluation. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

3.5 OTHER EVALUATION TERMS

Strength An aspect of a proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, or provides an approach directly related to the requirement that exceeds the minimum expectation.

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

Significant Weakness

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

Deficiency “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 “Risk is a measure of the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The TEP shall use the following procedure to analyze the technical proposals and document its analysis.

Unless otherwise specified, the same procedures apply to individual evaluations and consensus evaluations.

General Procedures Applicable to Individual and Consensus Evaluations

Proceed in alphabetical order by company name and complete the entire evaluation of that company’s technical proposal before going on to the next proposal.

Document strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks, and provide detailed examples from the proposal as well as the individual evaluator’s or TEP’s explanations regarding why the example is a strength, weakness, major weakness, deficiency, or risk. Include citations to reference pages that support the analysis.

Assign a rating to each factor. Add any helpful explanations and general comments about the factor that do not fit neatly into strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

Assign an overall rating to the technical proposal. Once again, feel free to add other comments regarding the proposal. Evaluate each proposal only against the rating scale – not against other proposals.