Jump to content

Including Evaluation Method in Solicitation


meg327

Recommended Posts

I've been taught two different things as far as keeping the evaluation method in the solicitation. Some people say keep it in while some say don't. To be clear, I'm referring to including the definitions of the ratings (Acceptable, Outstanding, Unacceptable, etc.) and/or notifying offerors in the solicitation whether the Agency will evaluate by color, number or some other way. DoD contracting staff seems to like putting in everything in the solicitation. However, I don't work for DoD and it appears that DoD has clearer guidelines about what quantifies as Outstanding, Acceptable, etc. which aren't often changed. At other agencies it appears it may be less clear what quantifies as "Outstanding, acceptable, etc." and in fact a technical team may want to change the definition of such things. Can I get some opinions on whether to keep the evaluation method in the solicitation or keep it out?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

I have just gone through a period of reviewing every RFP I could find at FedBizOpps, and I have observed that quite a few agencies put descriptions of their rating methods (terminology and definitions) in their solicitations.

However, describing rating terms and definitions is of little use to competing firms unless the agency discloses its factor measurement scales and value functions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Here is the notorious DOD adjectival/color rating scheme:

Quote

OUTSTANDING (Blue): Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

ACCEPTABLE (Purple): Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

GOOD (Green): Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

MARGINAL (Yellow): Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

UNACCEPTABLE (Red): Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

What good does putting that in an RFP do for offerors if you don't tell them what makes an "approach" and an "understanding" exceptional, thorough, or adequate, and what would constitute a strength?

There's no reason to put that in an RFP, and there's no reason not to. If you're working with numbskulls, then it's not worth arguing about whether to put that in the RFP or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Here is the notorious DOD adjectival/color rating scheme:

What good does putting that in an RFP do for offerors if you don't tell them what makes an "approach" and an "understanding" exceptional, thorough, or adequate, and what would constitute a strength?

There's no reason to put that in an RFP, and there's no reason not to. If you're working with numbskulls, then it's not worth arguing about whether to put that in the RFP or not.

 

 

Section M or equivalent must describe the evaluation factors.

If you include the rating definitions (not mandatory but helpful) , you ought to describe the basic evaluation criteria for each factor and sub factor or at least refer to such information, if included elsewhere, (e.g., in the requirements/statement of work/specs, etc.). 

Thus, putting that in an RFP helps offerors if you tell them what makes an "approach" and an "understanding" exceptional, thorough, or adequate, and what would constitute a strength.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, apsofacto said:

We do not include this in our RFPs and no one on the proposers' side seems to miss it.  We only use this internally.

Comment: Depending upon what one is buying, describing how the evaluation factors and subfactors will be evaluated is very helpful to the industry in developing a technical proposal, in deciding what is important to the buying agency and in deciding what level of quality to propose in order to win the award. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
13 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

describing how the evaluation factors and subfactors will be evaluated

What does that mean?

What do you describe when you describe "how" the evaluation factors will be evaluated? For instance, suppose that the evaluation factor is "Soundness of Proposed Approach" (which is a very popular factor). What kind of information would you provide in order to describe "how" that factor would be evaluated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PepeTheFrog

From the government's perspective, consider that the ratings (colors, adjectives, whatever) are really just summaries of the underlying strengths and weaknesses. In a protest, nobody will be convinced because you wrote Acme Inc. was PURPLE PURPLE PURPLE or GOOD GOOD GOOD. Relying too much on the definitions of the ratings is a mistake. Focus on what gets you to the ratings, which is the underlying strengths and weaknesses, or the good things and the bad things and how well you explain why they are good things or bad things.

From industry's perspective, the definitions of ratings will only be useful if they are a significant departure from the usual colors/adjectives or the definitions include concrete, specific information about how to achieve the ratings. Basically, what Vern Edwards said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
56 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

From the government's perspective, consider that the ratings (colors, adjectives, whatever) are really just summaries of the underlying strengths and weaknesses.

Strength and weakness are themselves nothing but ratings, summary judgments based on premises and proposal facts.

See "Postscript: Source Selection Decisions," The Nash & Cibinic Report (June 2018):

Quote

How is the characterization of particular proposal content as a strength, weakness, or deficiency any different from the characterization of the proposal itself as Outstanding, Good, or Unacceptable? Strength, weakness, and deficiency are ratings—shorthand descriptive labels that encompass and summarize more detailed information. And thus it follows that an explanation must be forthcoming when some statement or set of statements in a proposal is rated as a strength, weakness, or deficiency. How is it a strength? How is it a weakness? How is it a deficiency? The issue is the same issue as in: How is proposal X outstanding? How is proposal Y marginal? What makes it so?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What does that mean?

What do you describe when you describe "how" the evaluation factors will be evaluated? For instance, suppose that the evaluation factor is "Soundness of Proposed Approach" (which is a very popular factor). What kind of information would you provide in order to describe "how" that factor would be evaluated?

 

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

...you ought to describe the basic evaluation criteria for each factor and sub factor or at least refer to such information, if included elsewhere, (e.g., in the requirements/statement of work/specs, etc.). 

Thus, putting that in an RFP helps offerors if you tell them what makes an "approach" and an "understanding" exceptional, thorough, or adequate, and what would constitute a strength.

  

I’m not going to develop the evaluation criteria here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...