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.
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. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar in size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. When determining the overall Performance Confidence Assessment for an Offeror, the Government will take into consideration the following areas: demonstrated record of successful performance in comparable projects; demonstrated ability to select, retain, support and, when necessary, replace subcontractors; demonstrated implementation of corrective measures that have been implemented to resolve performance issues; demonstrated record of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; demonstrated record of cost and schedule management; and the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts. The Government will evaluate performance ratings by CPARS or PPQs. The PPQ included in the solicitation (Attachment 4). If no recent/relevant performance record is available or if the xxxxxxx’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be given a “Neutral Confidence” assessment rating. The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror's proposal in addition to data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and may not contact all of the identified Points of Contact (POCs) provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from other sources, and the agency conducts either discussions or communications with the particular offeror as defined in FAR 15.306, the offeror will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received in which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment. Factor 2 will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS Rating Definition Acceptable/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...
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.
