Draft_Amendment_W91CRB-18-R-0065_Technical_Evaluation_Approach.docx

2.2.3.1 Technical Evaluation Approach

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether the technical requirements specified in the RFP have been adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied by the offeror. The evaluators will consider the following criteria when evaluating each Technical Sub Factor:

· Understanding of the Problem: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all technical features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements will be evaluated. The extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed will be evaluated.

· Feasibility of Approach: The feasibility of achieving the proposed system approach and results within the program schedule will be evaluated.

· Completeness: The completeness of the proposal in addressing all aspects of the SOW and technical performance requirements will be evaluated. The data provided by the offeror to substantiate performance claims will be evaluated.

· Compliance with Instructions: The compliance of the offeror’s proposal with the solicitation instructions of Section L will be evaluated.

The following definitions will be used:

· DEFICIENCY: A failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

· 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.

The ratings for the Technical Sub Factors will be expressed as an adjectival assessment as defined below. The Sub Factor ratings will then be rolled up to determine the overall Technical factor rating.

Technical Sub Factor 1 (Sample Hardware Evaluation), Sub Factor 2 (Program Management), and Sub Factor 3 (SBS Performance) Ratings:

· 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.

· MARGINAL: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

· ACCEPTABLE: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

· 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.

· OUTSTANDING: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Technical Sub Factor 4 (Logistics) and Sub Factor 5 (Quality Assurance) Ratings:

· 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.

· ACCEPTABLE: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.