S02 Solicitation Attachment 3 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions.pdf

Attachment 3 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions Solicitation 36C26222R0044

EVALUATION DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS

DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS FOR TECHNICAL FACTORS AND PAST

PERFORMANCE

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Exceptional

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: Low

Good

The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: Low

Satisfactory/ Acceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal

The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains

Attachment 3 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions Solicitation 36C26222R0044 solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: High

Unsatisfactory

The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Risk Level: High

Neutral/ Unknown

Offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

Low Risk Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work. Any proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Moderate Risk

Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work.

Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably minimize difficulties.

High Risk Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required work.

Approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.