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 meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus 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. 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. 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. Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope andmagnitude 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 ofeffort 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. W911QY20R0020 Quality Assessment: The third aspect of the past performance will be to assess the quality of the offeror's past performance on those recent efforts. The efforts determined relevant will be assessed to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. High Quality: Contractor clearly demonstrated a level of performance above expectations. Acceptable Quality: Contractor demonstrated an acceptable level of performance. Low Quality: Contractor did not demonstrate an acceptable level of performance Past Performance Confidence Assessment: Once the Recency, Relevancy and Quality of the past performance contracts has been established, the final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. Performance Confidence Assessments 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 ...
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 meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The offeror has demonstrated the following: (a) Demonstrated its technical capabilities, approach, and unique skill or solutions to manufacture the specified supplies/services and capability to manufacture from build to print drawings of both the prime and subcontractor(s). (b) Demonstrated its Quality Management process and oversight of quality process and experience with quality systems such as ANSI 5410, ISO 17025, and ISO 9001:2015, as it applies to both the prime and subcontractor(s). (c) Demonstrated overall technical and schedule risks involved in the manufacture and testing of the Wire Coil Cover Assembly based on the build to print drawings and specifications provided in the solicitation. (d) Demonstrated risk management for the overall risk identified in the preceding paragraph 1(c), and described any experience, techniques, and methodology that will be utilized to mitigate the identified risks during contract performance.
Rating Description. Acceptable Government has a reasonable expectation that the Vendor can successfully supply furniture of the type and quality of items as covered under SIN 711 2, risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Unacceptable Government has no reasonable expectation that the Vendor can successfully supply furniture of the type and quality of items covered under SIN 711 2, risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
