BMAD-METHOD/expansion-packs/bmad-rfq-government/data/evaluation-criteria-reference.md

Government Evaluation Criteria Reference Guide

Overview

This reference guide provides comprehensive information on common government evaluation criteria used in RFQs across various agencies. Understanding these criteria is essential for developing targeted, compliant proposals that effectively address evaluator expectations and maximize evaluation scores.

General Evaluation Approaches

Best Value Continuum

Government agencies use various approaches along the "best value continuum":

1. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

   • Award goes to lowest priced offer that meets minimum technical requirements
   • All technical factors are pass/fail
   • No trade-offs between price and non-price factors
   • Used for well-defined requirements with minimal risk
   • Common in commodity purchases and standardized services

2. Best Value Trade-off

   • Allows trade-offs between price and non-price factors
   • Non-price factors may be significantly more important than price
   • Provides flexibility to select higher-priced, superior technical solutions
   • Used for complex requirements or where quality differences matter
   • Requires documented trade-off rationale

3. Performance-Price Trade-off (Fixed Price – Technical Trade-off)

   • Hybrid approach: technical proposals evaluated, then price considered
   • Award goes to technically superior offer unless price premium is not justified
   • Limited documentation of trade-off rationale required
   • Used when technical superiority has value, but price remains important

Adjectival Rating Scales

Common rating scales used by government evaluators:

1. Five-Level Scale

   • Outstanding: Exceptional approach with significant strengths and no weaknesses
   • Good: Quality approach with strengths outweighing weaknesses
   • Acceptable: Adequate approach meeting requirements with offsetting strengths and weaknesses
   • Marginal: Approach with significant weaknesses that may be correctable
   • Unacceptable: Approach with deficiencies requiring major revision

2. Three-Level Scale

   • Acceptable: Meets requirements with acceptable risk
   • Reasonably Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable: Deficiencies that can be addressed
   • Unacceptable: Major deficiencies that cannot reasonably be corrected

3. Risk Assessment Scale

   • Low Risk: Little potential to disrupt schedule, performance, or cost
   • Moderate Risk: Some potential to disrupt schedule, performance, or cost
   • High Risk: Significant potential to disrupt schedule, performance, or cost

4. Strengths-Weaknesses Scale (SWARD Analysis)

   • Strengths: Aspects that exceed requirements or enhance performance
   • Weaknesses: Flaws that increase risk or reduce quality
   • Risks: Potential problems that may arise
   • Deficiencies: Failures to meet requirements

Common Technical Evaluation Criteria

Understanding of Requirements

Government evaluators assess:

• Clear demonstration of requirements comprehension
• Identification of critical success factors and risks
• Understanding of operational context and constraints
• Insight into unstated requirements and challenges
• Recognition of interrelationships between requirements

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated understanding of the technical requirements and operational environment."

Technical Approach

Government evaluators assess:

• Methodology for accomplishing required tasks
• Soundness and effectiveness of proposed approach
• Feasibility given constraints and timelines
• Technical maturity and risk of proposed solutions
• Alignment with government technical standards

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's technical approach provides an effective, efficient, and feasible solution to meet or exceed the requirements."

Technical Capability

Government evaluators assess:

• Demonstrated technical expertise in relevant domains
• Access to necessary tools, facilities, and technologies
• Technical certifications and qualifications
• Research and development capabilities
• Technical depth and breadth of organization

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical capabilities, including specialized expertise, techniques, and processes required to successfully perform the work."

Innovation

Government evaluators assess:

• Novel approaches that enhance performance or reduce cost
• Improvements to standard methodologies
• Application of emerging technologies
• Creative solutions to complex problems
• Intellectual property and proprietary methods

Example Language: "The Government will consider innovative approaches that demonstrably improve efficiency, effectiveness, or outcomes beyond conventional solutions."

Risk Management

Government evaluators assess:

• Risk identification and categorization
• Risk mitigation strategies and contingency plans
• Risk monitoring and control mechanisms
• Track record of risk management success
• Realistic assessment of risk likelihood and impact

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to identifying, mitigating, and managing technical, schedule, and performance risks."

Common Management Evaluation Criteria

Program Management

Government evaluators assess:

• Program management methodology and approach
• Organizational structure and governance
• Decision-making processes and authorities
• Communication and reporting procedures
• Quality assurance and control processes

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's program management approach, including organizational structure, lines of authority, and coordination mechanisms."

Staffing Approach

Government evaluators assess:

• Staffing plan adequacy for required work
• Staff qualifications and experience
• Recruitment and retention strategies
• Training and professional development
• Staff allocation and utilization

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to staffing, including the qualifications of proposed personnel and the adequacy of staffing levels."

Key Personnel

Government evaluators assess:

• Experience in similar roles and projects
• Specific qualifications and certifications
• Tenure with organization
• Direct relevant experience
• Published works or recognized expertise

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the experience, qualifications, and suitability of key personnel who will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement."

Transition Approach

Government evaluators assess:

• Transition methodology and timeline
• Minimization of disruption to operations
• Knowledge transfer and documentation
• Staffing continuity during transition
• Risk management during transition

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to transition-in, including timeline, milestones, and strategies to ensure continuity of operations."

Subcontractor Management

Government evaluators assess:

• Subcontractor selection and qualification process
• Subcontractor oversight and management approach
• Integration of subcontractors into overall team
• Past working relationships with subcontractors
• Small business subcontracting approach

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to managing subcontractors, including oversight mechanisms and integration strategies."

Common Past Performance Evaluation Criteria

Relevance

Government evaluators assess:

• Similarity of scope, magnitude, and complexity
• Recency of performance
• Same or similar customer/agency
• Same or similar technical domain
• Same or similar contract type

Example Language: "The Government will assess relevancy by determining how similar the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the offeror's past performance references are to the current requirement."

Quality of Performance

Government evaluators assess:

• CPARS/PPIRS ratings and narratives
• Customer satisfaction and testimonials
• Awards and recognition
• Adherence to budget and schedule
• Quality of deliverables and outcomes

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance based on information obtained from references, CPARS, and other sources."

Problem Resolution

Government evaluators assess:

• Response to performance issues
• Corrective action effectiveness
• Customer communication during problems
• Root cause analysis approach
• Preventive measures implemented

Example Language: "The Government will consider the offeror's demonstrated ability to identify, address, and resolve performance issues on previous contracts."

Systemic Improvement

Government evaluators assess:

• Lessons learned implementation
• Continuous improvement processes
• Performance trend over time
• Investment in quality and efficiency improvements
• Innovation applied to similar contracts

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated commitment to performance improvement and application of lessons learned."

Common Pricing/Cost Evaluation Criteria

Price Reasonableness

Government evaluators assess:

• Comparison to other offerors' prices
• Comparison to independent government cost estimate (IGCE)
• Comparison to historical prices for similar items/services
• Analysis of proposed elements of cost
• Alignment with market rates

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate price reasonableness by comparing the offeror's price to other prices received, current market rates, and/or the IGCE."

Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursement Contracts)

Government evaluators assess:

• Whether proposed costs are realistic for the work
• Whether costs reflect a clear understanding of requirements
• Consistency with technical proposal elements
• Realistic labor rates and categories
• Appropriate indirect rates and factors

Example Language: "The Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine whether the estimated proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements."

Total Cost of Ownership

Government evaluators assess:

• Lifecycle costs beyond initial purchase/implementation
• Maintenance and support costs
• Training and transition costs
• Upgrade and expansion costs
• Energy/resource consumption costs

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the total cost of ownership, including acquisition, operation, maintenance, and disposal costs over the anticipated lifecycle."

Price Risk

Government evaluators assess:

• Potential for cost growth or overruns
• Pricing assumptions and dependencies
• Uncertain labor or material costs
• Currency or market fluctuation effects
• Subcontractor pricing risks

Example Language: "The Government will assess pricing risk based on the realism of proposed prices, the soundness of pricing strategies, and potential for cost growth."

Agency-Specific Evaluation Approaches

Department of Defense (DoD)

Frequently emphasizes:

• Military standards compliance
• Security clearance levels
• Interoperability with existing systems
• Mission assurance and continuity
• Security posture and cyber resilience

Example Criteria:

• "Ability to meet or exceed applicable military standards"
• "Approach to ensuring information security and cyber resilience"
• "Strategy for maintaining operations in contested environments"

Health and Human Services (HHS)

Frequently emphasizes:

• Healthcare regulations compliance (HIPAA, etc.)
• Patient data protection and privacy
• Interoperability with health information systems
• Accessibility compliance
• User experience for healthcare providers

Example Criteria:

• "Approach to ensuring HIPAA compliance and data privacy"
• "Method for achieving interoperability with federal health information systems"
• "Strategy for addressing health equity considerations"

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Frequently emphasizes:

• Security capabilities and resilience
• Emergency response and continuity
• Cross-agency coordination capabilities
• Adaptability to evolving threats
• Compliance with DHS security standards

Example Criteria:

• "Approach to meeting DHS security requirements and standards"
• "Capability to support cross-agency emergency response"
• "Resilience in the face of physical and cyber threats"

General Services Administration (GSA)

Frequently emphasizes:

• Compliance with government-wide standards
• Scalability across multiple agencies
• Price competitiveness
• Section 508 accessibility compliance
• Sustainability and environmental considerations

Example Criteria:

• "Ability to meet government-wide technical standards"
• "Approach to ensuring 508 compliance and accessibility"
• "Strategy for reducing environmental impact and energy usage"

Special Evaluation Considerations

Small Business Set-Asides

Special evaluation factors may include:

• Small business status verification
• Socioeconomic category qualification (WOSB, SDVOSB, etc.)
• Compliance with limitations on subcontracting
• Small business participation plan
• Mentor-protégé arrangements

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's compliance with small business requirements, including limitations on subcontracting."

Security Requirements

Evaluation factors may include:

• Facility clearance level
• Personnel security clearances
• Secure facility capabilities
• Cybersecurity compliance (CMMC, NIST 800-171, etc.)
• Supply chain risk management

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's ability to meet and maintain required security clearances and implement required security protocols."

Cloud Computing Services

Evaluation factors may include:

• FedRAMP authorization level
• Data sovereignty and location
• Service level agreements
• Disaster recovery and continuity
• Cloud-specific security controls

Example Language: "The Government will evaluate the security and compliance of proposed cloud solutions, including FedRAMP authorization status and data sovereignty provisions."

Pre-Award Evaluation Process

Evaluation Board Structure

Typical evaluation structure:

• Technical Evaluation Board (TEB)
• Past Performance Evaluation Board (PPEB)
• Cost/Price Evaluation Board (CEB)
• Source Selection Authority (SSA)
• Advisors (legal, small business, etc.)

Each evaluator typically:

• Reviews proposals independently
• Documents strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies
• Assigns initial ratings
• Participates in consensus meetings
• Contributes to evaluation reports

Evaluation Documentation

Government evaluators create:

• Individual evaluation worksheets
• Consensus evaluation reports
• Strengths and weaknesses documentation
• Risk assessments
• Price/cost analysis reports
• Source selection decision document

Clarifications and Discussions

If necessary, government may:

• Request clarifications (limited exchanges)
• Establish a competitive range
• Conduct discussions with offerors in competitive range
• Request proposal revisions
• Conduct final evaluations of revised proposals

Proposal Development Strategies Based on Evaluation Criteria

General Strategies

1. Alignment Strategy

   • Explicitly align proposal structure with evaluation criteria
   • Use evaluation criteria language in headings and content
   • Create traceability matrices connecting proposal sections to criteria
   • Weight content according to relative importance of criteria

2. Evidence Strategy

   • Provide specific, relevant evidence for each evaluation factor
   • Include metrics, case studies, and past performance examples
   • Use graphics to highlight alignment with evaluation criteria
   • Anticipate and address potential weaknesses proactively

3. Differentiation Strategy

   • Identify your strongest areas relative to evaluation criteria
   • Emphasize unique capabilities that address specific criteria
   • Develop discriminators that relate directly to high-value criteria
   • Demonstrate direct relevance to the agency's mission and needs

Conclusion

Understanding government evaluation criteria is critical to developing winning proposals. By aligning your response directly with these criteria and providing specific, compelling evidence of your capabilities, you can maximize your evaluation scores and increase your probability of success.

---

This reference guide should be used in conjunction with specific RFQ evaluation criteria, as each solicitation may contain unique factors and weightings.