UFC 4-721-11.1
26 Nov 01
evaluation room reflects the USACE activity's professionalism and establishes an efficient working
environment for the team. The PA/PE should ensure that the following are available to evaluators:
10-6.2.1 Copies of the technical review comments from Engineering.
10-6.2.2 Copies of the RFP with all amendments.
10-6.2.3 Supplies including: pencils, erasers, writing pads, file folders, simple calculators, staplers and
staples, architectural and engineering scales, paper clips, masking and transparent tape, and a pencil
sharpener
10-6.3 Technical Transfusions. The Contracting Officer and other Government personnel involved in
proposal evaluations must not engage in taking an offeror's good ideas or technical information for the
purpose of transferring that information to competing proposers. FAR 15.306 (reference 10-2) explicitly
prohibits this type of technical transfusion in the source selection process.
10-6.4 Conduct. Each quality evaluation team member will independently rate each proposal in
accordance with the TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANUAL. See Appendix B for a model. Evaluation will
be based strictly on the requirements stated in the STATEMENT OF WORK and Section 00120
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. Decisions and recommendations of the quality evaluation team
will be by consensus of the members.
10-6.5 Consensus.
Individual evaluator ratings will not be averaged or otherwise manipulated
mathematically to produce a single rating for any technical evaluation factors or sub-factors. Ratings will
be established as the result of a consensus of the evaluators. Where divergent evaluations exist, and
none of the evaluators have misinterpreted or misunderstood any aspects of the proposal(s),
consideration should be given to providing the Source Selection Authority (SSA) with written majority and
minority opinions. The SSA is not bound by the recommendations of the quality evaluation team.
10-6.6 Contract Specialist (CS) Responsibilities. The CS can act as quality evaluation team chairman
and discussion moderator, but will be impartial toward all proposals. (The PM or PA/PE could also act as
the evaluation team chairman based on the processes within the Design District.) The CS will brief the
team on the negotiated procurement process and evaluation procedures. The following procedures
should be presented each time the team is convened:
10-6.6.1 Security and integrity. Each member of the evaluation team is responsible for maintaining
security of proposals and all Government evaluation documents. As such, no material is permitted to be
removed from the evaluation room during the evaluation or after completion of the evaluation. The
evaluation room will be locked when not in use. Proposals should not be discussed outside the
evaluation room.
10-6.6.2 Procurement integrity and non-disclosure. Members of the evaluation team must sign a non-
disclosure statement as required by the procurement integrity regulations. This also applies to anyone
who looks at the proposals, even if not actually involved in the evaluation process.
10-6.6.3 Attendance sheets. Attendance sign-in sheets should be maintained to provide accountability,
ensure consistency in member participation, and reinforce the creditability to the evaluation process.
10-6.6.4 Access to the evaluation room. Evaluation team members may work beyond a normal 8-hour
day. Since material is not permitted to be removed from the evaluation room, the team should be able to
obtain access to the evaluation room in the evening and early in the morning.
10-6.6.5 "Unacceptable" Ratings. An "Unacceptable" rating on the consensus evaluation worksheet is an
indication that the item or feature being evaluated does not meet a stated minimum requirement of the
RFP. A rating of "Unacceptable" can only be made by consensus of the voting members and must be
supported by written documentation, with reference to the specific RFP requirement.
10-3
Previous Page
