UFC 4-214-02
24 July 2003
10-6.6.7 Written comments. Written comments are required of each evaluation team member identifying
the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. These comments are essential to the PA/PE and
CS in preparing the brief for the Source Selection Authority, completing negotiations, and in the
debriefing of offerors. Comments are to be objective and should not transfer ideas and design concepts
from one proposal to another. Full documentation is vital for the support of the Government's technical
evaluation and rating. It may be beneficial to include an administrative assistant to take notes during the
consensus discussions so that all of the key comments identified can be cataloged. Consensus
evaluation team comments are also necessary for defending the Government's selection in the event that
a protest is filed.
10-6.6.7.1 Identify and Document Deficiencies, Strengths, Weaknesses, and Uncertainties. All members
of the evaluation team shall each review each proposal.
Any strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or
uncertainties shall be identified and documented to allow discussions during the consensus evaluation
meeting to take place at the end of the evaluation period.
10-6.6.7.2 Definitions:
Proposal Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a
combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies include statements
by the offeror that it cannot or will not meet a requirement; an approach that clearly does not
met a requirement, or an omission of data required to assess compliance with a Government
requirement.
Proposal Strength: An aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of
unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.
Proposal Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract
performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the
risk of unsuccessful performance. Examples include offer features which meet the absolute
minimum requirements of the Government but contain aspects which are not considered
desirable by the Government.
Uncertainty: Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because
there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer
indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake. Examples include a mistake in
calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.
10-6.7 Additional Information. Additional information may not be provided by an offeror during the
technical evaluation. If additional information is necessary to complete the evaluation process, then the
requirements should be communicated to the Contract Specialist. If allowed, the Contract Specialist will
request needed information in writing from the offeror during discussions. At the descretion of the CS, a
telephonic conference with the proposer may be used to clear up small deficiencies or inconsistencies. If
a telephone conference is used, it shall be verified in writing as soon thereafter as possible. Verbal
clarifications have no contractual value.
10-7 DRAFT SOURCE SELECTION MEMORANDUM
10-7.1 Evaluation Ratings. After the technical quality evaluation of proposals has been completed, the
PA/PE will compile the final consensus ratings for each proposal including all documentation of the
strengths and weaknesses and forward them to the Contract Specialist.
Items identified by the
evaluators which require clarification by the offerors should be directed to the Contract Specialist for
resolution. The Contract Specialist will also open, close, and document all negotiations/discussions with
the offerors. All these items become part of the report to the SSEB and the DSSM.
10-4
Previous Page
