A.02.02_Attachment_3_Evaluation_Rating_Chart.pdf

EVALUATION RATING CHART

Per USACE Engineering Pamphlet 715-1-7, Section 3-8, Para E. Evaluation Method, any qualitative method such as adjectival or color coding to evaluate and compare the qualifications of the firms relevant to each selection criterion may be used. This acquisition will use the standard DOD Source Selection Manual Combined Technical and Risk Rating Method for the following factors:

• FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

• FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT PLAN

• FACTOR 3: PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

• FACTOR 5: KNOWLEDGE OF LOCALITY

• FACTOR 6: CAPACITY

DOD Source Selection Manual Combined Technical and Risk Rating

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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.

The risk adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table, if necessary for board evaluation purposes.

Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival R ti

Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can 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.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase 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 4: PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance Relevancy Ratings are as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition 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.

• FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition 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.

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.

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