Rating Description. 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.
Rating Description. Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. To receive a rating of Acceptable, all Subfactors must receive a rating of Acceptable.
Rating Description. 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.
Rating Description. Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or 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.
Rating Description. Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, 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.
Rating Description. 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. Neutral Confidence 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. 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.
Rating Description. Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.) Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. W900KK22R0031 NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.
Rating Description. Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.
Rating Description. 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 requirement 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.
Rating Description. 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. CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT M-215-H003 EVALUATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE PROCESS INITIATIVE (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) Previously approved Single Process Initiative (SPI) processes will be evaluated under the source selection criteria of the RFP. If the successful offeror has previously approved SPI processes in the proposal, those SPI processes will be incorporated into the contract upon award. (End of provision) M-215-H004 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018) ALL UNITS OF ALL ITEMS WILL BE AWARDED TO ONE OFFEROR. OFFERS, THEREFORE, MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF FURNISHING ALL UNITS OF ALL ITEMS TO THE SPECIFICATION(S) DETAILED IN THIS SOLICITATION.
