Common use of Rating System Clause in Contracts

Rating System. It is imperative that all members of the review panel score applications based on the criteria stipulated in the announcement. They will rate each evaluation criteria with the following adjectival descriptions and notate the strengths and weaknesses: OUTSTANDING - Information submitted demonstrates potential to significantly exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant clearly demonstrates understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and highest quality performance is anticipated. The applicant shows exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and meet the fullest expectations of the Government. The applicant convincingly demonstrates the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating within "outstanding" indicates the application contains essentially no significant weaknesses, deficiencies, or disadvantages and shows a very high probability of success. GOOD - Information submitted demonstrates potential to exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. A high level of efficiency or productivity or quality is anticipated. The applicant shows only minor (but no major) deficiencies. The applicant shows the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating with "Good" is used when there are no indications of exceptional features or innovations that could prove to be beneficial, or contrarily, weaknesses that could diminish the quality of the effort or increase the risks of failure. Disadvantages are minimal and there is high probability of exceeding the requirements. SATISFACTORY - Information submitted demonstrates potential to meet performance or capability standards. Applicant shows ability to meet minimum standard requirements and adequately meet programmatic goals and objectives. Applicant demonstrates few or no advantages or strengths and displays weaknesses in several areas that are not offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of "Satisfactory" equates to a neutral rating. There is a good probability of success as sufficient confidence that a fully compliant level of performance will be achieved. There are no significant advantages or disadvantages. MARGINAL - Information submitted demonstrates potential to marginally meet performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The application is not adequately responsive or does not address the specific programmatic goals and objectives. The assignment of a rating within the bounds of "Marginal" indicates significant deficiencies which may affect the overall project. The applicant demonstrates low probability of success although the proposal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable. UNSATISFACTORY – Information submitted fails to meet performance or capability standards. The proposal does not meet the minimum requirements and programmatic goals and objectives can only be met with major changes. There is no reasonable expectation that acceptable performance would be achieved. Applicant shows many deficiencies and/or gross omissions; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the Government's requirements; failure to meet many of the minimum requirements.

Rating System. It is imperative that all members of the review panel score applications based on the criteria stipulated in the announcement. They will rate each evaluation criteria with the following adjectival descriptions and notate the strengths and weaknesses: OUTSTANDING - Information submitted demonstrates potential to significantly exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant clearly demonstrates understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and highest quality performance is anticipated. The applicant shows exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and meet the fullest expectations of the Government. The applicant convincingly demonstrates the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating within "outstanding" indicates the application contains essentially no significant weaknesses, deficiencies, or disadvantages and shows a very high probability of success. GOOD - Information submitted demonstrates potential to exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. A high level of efficiency or productivity or quality is anticipated. The applicant shows only minor (but no major) deficiencies. The applicant shows the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating with "Good" is used when there are no indications of exceptional features or innovations that could prove to be beneficial, or contrarily, weaknesses that could diminish the quality of the effort or increase the risks of failure. Disadvantages are minimal and there is high probability of exceeding the requirements. SATISFACTORY - Information submitted demonstrates potential to meet performance or capability standards. Applicant shows ability to meet minimum standard requirements and adequately meet programmatic goals and objectives. Applicant demonstrates few or no advantages or strengths and displays weaknesses in several areas that are not offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of "Satisfactory" equates to a neutral rating. There is a good probability of success as sufficient confidence that a fully compliant level of performance will be achieved. There are no significant advantages or disadvantages. MARGINAL - Information submitted demonstrates potential to marginally meet performance or capability standards necessary for minimal minimal, but acceptable contract performance. The application is not adequately responsive or does not address the specific programmatic goals and objectives. The assignment of a rating within the bounds of "Marginal" indicates significant deficiencies which may affect the overall project. The applicant demonstrates low probability of success although the proposal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable. UNSATISFACTORY – Information submitted fails to meet performance or capability standards. The proposal does not meet the minimum requirements and programmatic goals and objectives can only be met with major changes. There is no reasonable expectation that acceptable performance would be achieved. Applicant shows many deficiencies and/or gross omissions; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the Government's requirements; failure to meet many of the minimum requirements.