The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)
3. EVALUATION RATING STANDARDS
3.1. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-PRICE PROPOSAL (EXCLUDING PAST PERFORMANCE)
Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table
| Outstanding |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on CONTRACT performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal |
| Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. |
3.2 Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions
| Clarifications |
| Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. |
| Communications |
| Exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. |
| Deficiency |
| A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weakness in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001 |
| Discussions |
| Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. |
| Performance Confidence Assessment |
| An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information. |
| Recency |
| As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. |
| Relevancy |
| As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. |
| Risk |
| The potential for unsuccessful contractor 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 (not applicable to firm-fixed price contracts) for degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Significant Strength |
| A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance. |
| Significant Weakness |
| A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. |
| 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 performance. |
| Weakness |
| A flaw the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. |
3.3. RATING STANDARDS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE
Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal
| 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. |
3.4 Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal
| Substantial Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror shall 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 shall successfully perform the required effort. |
| Limited Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offer shall successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror shall successfully perform the required effort. |
| Unknown Confidence (Neutral) |
| 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. |
Department of the Army Medical Command