Attachment 9 - Source Selection Guide.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION GUIDE

FOR

KGV-11M

11 January 2018

N00039-17-R-0019

Adjectival Ratings

Table 1: There are five different combined Technical/Risk ratings that may be assigned to Factor 1(KGV-11M Design) and Factor 2 (Integrated Master Schedule) as defined in Table 1.

For Factor 4, the definitions for acceptable and unacceptable are as defined in Table 1:

Table 1 Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2: There are four different levels of relevance that may be assigned to each individual past performance rating:

Table 2 Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 3: There are five different levels of performance confidence that may be assigned to each individual past performance rating:

Table 3 Adjectival Rating Description 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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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 a no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Table 4: There are two ratings that may be assigned to small business participation:

Table 4 Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.