Evaluation Criteria

Prior to the oral proposal delivery, create evaluator worksheets that reflect your evaluation criteria. Keep these as simple as possible—usually one or two pages, though I’ve seen as many as 10 pages in a simple format and only one page in a complex format.

Worksheets may be as simple or as complex as you choose, but I urge you to make them simple so that evaluators can complete them while the oral proposal is being briefed, even if the page count is longer. They might show little more than boxes for acceptable vs. unacceptable or strengths and weaknesses, or they might go into extreme, I-need-a-computer-to-figure-this-out detail. The evaluation team will be actively filling in these worksheets during the process so that they are complete within minutes of the conclusion of the vendor briefing and any resulting clarifications.

INSIGHT:

Some policy and legal reviewers who are traditionalists like to flesh out criteria to a minute degree, showing 5-10 things that must be present within each for it to be acceptable or outstanding. Generally, this is overkill and adds too much unnecessary effort with very little benefit. This is not oral proposal specific, but some advisory staff not familiar with oral proposals might be more conservative and levy more stringent criteria than actually needed.

The worksheet could also be in a source selection software program. If so, the team will have laptops or workstations in the evaluation room during the presentations and clarifications. Be sure to test these out in advance of the actual presentations, perhaps as part of the mock run. I also recommend having a printed worksheet version in the room, just in case a laptop dies.

I’ve provided some samples below that have both good and bad in them to help you tailor worksheets to your own acquisition, and to show what they look like so you’ll be a little less anxious about getting it right. Please don’t just copy the examples—put some thought into what works for your team.

Example #1:

This is one of the simpler formats that works for anything from small dollar studies all the way to large dollar source selections. Each subfactor can be listed, along with the rating and what constitutes success. You can also add space for the prime and subcontractors’ compliance, strengths, weaknesses, and notes, or those can be evaluated on a separate blank sheet.

M- 3.1 Subfactor A: Program Management/ Technical Approach Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by addressing the following:	√	RATING
Demonstrations and Tests: Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: test plans, test reports, and data analysis plans that evidence processes for accomplishing Demonstration and Tests.		Acceptable
		Unacceptable

Example #2:

This example is also very simple, though it has multiple pages. Each page addresses the ratings and definitions, reiterates the subfactors, provides a block for strengths, weaknesses, and comments, reiterates risk and risk definitions, etc. This way, the evaluator does not have to flip or shuffle pages to remember a definition, especially when the presenter is on the cusp. The sample uses actual subfactors and examples of strengths as shown in the first worksheet. If you use this example as your template, be sure to use current definitions for ratings.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR COMPETITIVE ACQUISITIONS

Subfactor 1(i). Soundness and scope of Offeror’s proposed technical approach and consistency with established systems engineering practices as described in Defense Acquisition Guidebook Chapter 4.

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

1. Strong Modeling and Simulation (M&S) experience (EXAMPLE)

2. Proven performance in the execution of previous government-contracted M&S contracts (EXAMPLE)

3. Working enhancements to concepts already proven (EXAMPLE)

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate _____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 1 (ii). Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates that the defined requirements in Section I of the BAA can be accomplished with the proposed technology

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

1.

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High ____ Moderate ____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 1(iii). Scope, traceability and feasibility of proposed analysis and test plans

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

1.

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High ____ Moderate _____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 2(i). Personnel/Management: Experience and capabilities of key personnel (both technical and management); experience and capabilities to manage technical risks, control cost and schedule

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate _____ Low ______

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 2(ii). Facilities, equipment and techniques necessary to accomplish the project

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate _____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 2(iii). Subcontract Management: Experience and capabilities to manage subcontractor performance, cost and schedule; nature and extent of reliance on subcontractor

Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why there is doubt that an aspect does not meet minimum performance or capability requirements.)

Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements (Address key technical aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

1.

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate ____ Low ______

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 3(i). Proposed cost is realistic for work performed and consistent with the methods of performance and material described in Offerors’ technical proposals

Acceptable: The cost proposal is well supported, complete, reasonable and realistic

Unacceptable: Fails to provide adequate documentation to support the cost proposal

Strengths

1.

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate ____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Subfactor 3(ii). Proposed cost is fair and reasonable based on a cost analysis

Acceptable: The cost proposal is well supported, complete, reasonable and realistic

Unacceptable: Fails to provide adequate documentation to support the cost proposal

Strengths

1.

Weaknesses

Assessed Risk: High _____ Moderate ____ Low _____

High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Example #3:

This example is more complex than the previous examples, but it sticks to a single legal-sized page, albeit with tiny print. Each page—one per presentation—contains columns representing prime or subcontractor, subfactors and their definitions, ratings, notes, etc.

Click to enlarge.

Unofficial Oral Proposal Guide

Unofficial Oral Proposal Guide