Adjectival Rating Description Sample Clauses

POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Adjectival Rating Description. Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitori ng 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, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government mon itoring 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, increased cost 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. Past performance will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance Information on Past Contracts: Information on past performance shall be obtained as follows and reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment: - From the offeror, as solicited; - From questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; and/or - From any other sources available to the Government, including, but not limited to: - Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); - Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); - Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); - Other databases; - Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Officials; and/or - Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
View Source
Adjectival 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.
View SourceView Similar (9)
Adjectival Rating Description. Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirement and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance in unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. A rating of Unacceptable or Marginal in any factor will render the proposal unacceptable. Unacceptable proposals are ineligible for award without discussions and a subsequent, acceptable rating. Confidence Rating table below. The Government will evaluate past performance to determine whether the offeror’s recent, relevant past performance creates an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral* The offeror’s performance record is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned; therefore, the offeror has unknown past performance and the Government’s confidence is “neutral.” Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
View Source
Adjectival 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.
View Source
Adjectival Rating Description. Outstanding Proposal demonstrates exceptional experience that directly correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Clear understanding of the operating space; Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Proposal demonstrates ample experience that easily correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Demonstrates an understanding of the operating space; Above average degree of confidence in offeror’s ability to successfully execute. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable Proposal demonstrates adequate experience that roughly correlates to the area of research represented by this solicitation. Demonstrates an awareness of the operating space; Risk of unsuccessful performance is low-moderate. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus, contains one or more deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable and proposal is unawardable. Under this factor, the Government will evaluate all Offerors on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. The following shall be provided, at a minimum as evidence of small business participation: • The extent to which such firms identified in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified by name and socio-economic category in proposals • The extent of commitment to use such firms (Signed commitments will be considered more favorable) • The identification of the complexity and the variety of the work small firms are to perform Applicable to other than small businesses only: The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW DOD and Army requirements. All mandatory elements shall be present for the plan to be acceptable. Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.
View Source
Adjectival Rating Description. Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The weaknesses and/or deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each non-price evaluation factor which influenced the assigned adjectival rating shall be identified.
View Source

Related to Adjectival Rating Description

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion # 4 READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not i ncrease your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for years two and thr ee and potentially year four, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIP S, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentati on, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from th e “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, wit h any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they ma y apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ at TIPS at ▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇@t ▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇▇

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion 4. READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not increase your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for the life of the contract, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIPS, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from the “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, with any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they may apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ at TIPS at ▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇▇ If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solicitation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law clauses in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded vendor and with a TIPS member entity to read as follows: "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the customer resides" or words to that effect.

  • Measuring EPP parameters Every 5 minutes, EPP probes will select one “IP address” of the EPP servers of the TLD being monitored and make an “EPP test”; every time they should alternate between the 3 different types of commands and between the commands inside each category. If an “EPP test” result is undefined/unanswered, the EPP service will be considered as unavailable from that probe until it is time to make a new test.

  • Sector Sub-Sector Industry Classification Level of Government Type of Obligation Description of Measure Source of Measure All sectors : : - : Central : National Treatment Senior Management and Board of Directors : National Treatment and the Senior Management and Board of Directors obligations shall not apply to any measure relating to small and medium sized domestic market enterprise2. Foreign equity is restricted to a maximum of 40% for domestic market enterprises with paid-in equity capital of less than the equivalent of USD 200,000 Note: Members of the Board of Directors or governing body of corporation or associations shall be allowed in proportion to their allowable participation or share in the capital of such enterprises. : -1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. - Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (R.A. No. 7042, as amended by R.A. No. 8179). -Presidential and Administrative Issuances. ∞ 2 The concept of a small and medium sized domestic market enterprise is an enterprise with paid in equity capital of less than the equivalent of USD 200,000.00.

  • Topic Description Severability If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid or unenforceable, then, to the extent possible, all of the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.