Section A 1-1(c) Evaluation Ratings and Definitions for Detection Canines.pdf

SOLICITATION SECTION J ATTACHMENT(S) A 1-1(c) Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

SOLICITATION SECTION J ATTACHMENT(S)

A 1-1(c) Evaluation Ratings and Definitions for Detection Canines

Each factor shall be evaluated against the criteria on the evaluation worksheets.

A. Past Performance. The Past Performance factor will be rated as follows:

(a) Recency: Recent is defined as contract performance within the past three years. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Recency:

Adjectival Rating Description Recent Contract Performance occurred within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

Not Recent Contract Performance did not occur within the past three years from the date proposals are due.

(b) Relevancy: Relevancy includes, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Relevancy:

Adjectival Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessment: For past performance contract references determined to be both recent and relevant, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the performance of those efforts demonstrates an overall performance and quality record that supports an expectation of successful achievement of the solicitation requirements by assigning an adjectival rating as follows:

Evaluation Factor 1 – Past Performance Rating Symbol Definition

Exceptional E

Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of significantly exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Good G

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Satisfactory S The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror is capable of meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it is likely to have problems meeting the requirements of the RFQ.

Neutral N No past performance/experience available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

B. Technical Approach. The Technical Approach will be evaluated by assigning the following ratings.

Evaluation Factor 2 - Technical Approach Rating Symbol Definition

Exceptional E

Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; recognizes critical program elements; offers industry best practices and proactive and innovative solutions; significantly exceeds performance/capability standards; shows exceptional technical expertise/strengths that will significantly benefit the Government; has no deficiencies or significant weaknesses.

Good G Demonstrates adequate understanding of requirements; meets performance/capability standards; has few or no strengths that will benefit the Government; has few weaknesses and no deficiencies.

Satisfactory S Demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements; does not fully meet performance/capability standards; has one or more major weakness or deficiency which is/are correctable without major changes to the proposal.

Unsatisfactory U Demonstrates a lack of understanding of requirements; fails to meet performance/capability standards; has major weaknesses or deficiencies which cannot be corrected without major changes to the proposal.

C. Other Ratings. The following ratings will aid in assigning the above ratings.

Evaluation Definitions

Rating Definition

Strength The area that exceeds the requirements stated in the statement of work. Also may contain enhancing features that provide supply or service above and beyond what is called for that benefit the Government.

Weakness A flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A weakness is also an omission from the Offeror’s proposal that contributed to a deficiency in meeting the evaluation criteria or is otherwise a shortcoming of the proposal that has the potential to degrade contract performance. A weakness may be correctable through discussions and revisions.

Deficiency A material failure to meet the requirement or a combination of weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Deficiencies are fatal errors that can’t be corrected, without major revisions.

Omission Information requested in the RFP that was not provided in the proposal. An omission is not necessarily a deficiency if it is not material in nature and the intent of the Offeror can be readily determined.

Evaluation Definitions

Risk The potential risks (e.g., cost, technical, performance, or schedule) that would be possible if the contractor was selected.

Clarification Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of the proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.