UFC 4-721-11.1
26 Nov 01
||content||
\ c. GO NO-GO Items. Where specific evaluation items indicate a GO NO-GO Rating, these items shall
be treated as basically a pass-fail item. No partial "GO" is acceptable proposals must be complete and
clear enough to receive a "GO" Rating or they shall receive a "NO GO" rating. Any factor which includes a
"NO GO" evaluation item rating shall be rated as "UNACCEPTABLE". /1/
6. EVALUATION FACTORS
a. As indicated in Section 00120, PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD, the following
factors will be evaluated and rated for each proposal:
FACTOR 2-1: BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS: This factor is the most important factor in the
evaluation of Phase 2 proposals.
FACTOR 2-2: BUILDING SYSTEMS: This factor is slightly less important than Factor 2-1.
FACTOR 2-3: SITE DESIGN: This factor is slightly less important than Factor 2-2.
FACTOR 2-4: SITE ENGINEERING: This factor is significantly less important than Factor 2-3.
FACTOR 2-5: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: This factor is approximately equal in
importance to Factor 2-4.
FACTOR 2-6: OFFEROR MANAGEMENT PLANS AND SCHEDULES: This factor is equal in weight to
Factor 2-5.
7. OVERALL PROPOSAL RATING
a. It is the intent of the evaluation worksheets that follow to focus the evaluators on the key issues and
concerns with respect to construction, operation,
||content||
\ maintainability /1/, and function of the facilities. These
worksheets are meant to stimulate thought and analysis and provide a framework in which to document
concerns, strengths, weaknesses,
||content||
\ deficiencies, and uncertainties /1/. Evaluators are encouraged to
document all observations and analyses during the individual rating times and to share that analysis with the
team during the consensus discussions.
b. It is the responsibility of the evaluation team to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses,
and omissions to suitably support the assigned rating in each Factor as well as the overall Phase 2 rating.
Documentation/comments are required for all ratings other than "SATISFACTORY".
c. The Chairperson shall distribute a copy of the Phase 1 ratings for each Offeror. The evaluation team, at
this point, shall weigh the assigned ratings from Phase 1 and Phase 2, take into account the assembled
strengths and weaknesses, and provide an overall proposal rating for each Offeror. This final combined
rating shall be used for comparison and in the trade off process as applicable. For the purposes of this final
proposal adjectival rating, the Phase 2 rating shall be more important than the Phase 1 rating.
d. Following the completion of the consensus discussions and rating assignments, the individual rating
worksheets from each of the evaluators will be collected by the Chairperson and destroyed. Each evaluator
shall sign the final consensus rating assignment sheet.
Appendix B Page 3
Previous Page
