SE4 - Attachment 11 - Proposal Ratings Guide.pdf

N00039-18-R-0060

Attachment 11

Ratings Guide - This form is for informational purposes only and does not need to be returned with the proposal.

Proposal Ratings Guide

The Government will evaluate and rate non-cost factors and gate requirements based on the submission requirements in Section L and in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in

Section M. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed costs in accordance with

Section M. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will assign adjectival ratings for each evaluation factor. A proposal need not have all of the characteristics of a rating category in order to receive that rating; evaluators should use judgment to rate the proposal using these characteristics. Ratings will be accompanied by a consistent narrative assessment (strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies), which forms the basis for the ratings, as follows:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

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.

Risk Definitions

Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Low: Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Ratings Guide - This form is for informational purposes only and does not need to be returned with the proposal.

High: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

Unacceptable: Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance Recency – For the purposes of this procurement, recency is defined as work performed after January 30, 2012.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING CRITERIA

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.

Past Performance Quality Ratings - Quality measures how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Past performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

Ratings Guide - This form is for informational purposes only and does not need to be returned with the proposal.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

FACTOR 3 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Offeror proposes at least 20% of total acquisition value for small business. Of the proposed twenty (20) percent at least fifteen (15) percent of the total acquisition value shall be attributable to direct labor hours. Additionally, the extent of participation of small business shall meet, at a minimum, three (3) of the four (4) minimum proposed goals listed in the table below.

Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Offeror proposes at least 17% of total acquisition value for small business. Of the proposed seventeen (17) percent at least twelve (12) percent of the total acquisition value shall be attributable to direct labor hours. Additionally, the extent of participation of small business shall meet, at a minimum, two (2) of the four (4) minimum proposed goals listed in the table below.

Socioeconomic Categories

Minimum Proposed Goals*

SDB 6.35%

SDVOSB 3.00%

WOSB 5.00%

HUBZone 3.00%

* As a percent of the total proposed acquisition value.

Acceptable: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. Offeror proposes at least 15% of total acquisition value for small business. Of the proposed fifteen (15) percent at least ten (10) percent of the total acquisition value is attributable to direct labor hours.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Offeror proposes at least ten (10) percent of total acquisition value for small business. Of the proposed ten (10) percent at least five (5) percent of the total acquisition value is attributable to direct labor hours.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet small business objectives. Offeror proposes less than

10% of total acquisition value for small business.

Ratings Guide - This form is for informational purposes only and does not need to be returned with the proposal.

FINDINGS DEFINITIONS

In the evaluation of each factor, aspects of the proposal may be found to be advantageous or disadvantageous to the Government. These are defined as follows:

Strength: 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

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

Deficiency: 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, 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.