The following guidance was put together by the NSWC Panama
City Engineering Liaison Office for use by evaluation teams in conducting task
First you must keep in mind that you are evaluating the
proposals against (1) the requirements of the SOW and more importantly against
(2) the factors laid out in Section M. You must use the rating system built in
the SEAPORT website (when the time comes we can provide assistance in using the
DO remain objective when evaluating proposals (i.e., be
consistent in your evaluation for everyone).
DO follow the evaluation criteria established in the RFQ.
DO write concise and substantiated
evaluations of the factors, referencing applicable paragraphs from the
specification/SOW/contract where the contractor meets or exceeds requirements.
When writing comments cite examples from the offerors proposal when he either
meets or does not meet a requirement. ALWAYS STATE WHY YOU ARE
EVALUATING SOMETHING AS GOOD OR BAD.
DO prepare comments that relate to the factor being
evaluated based on the requirement not opinion.
DO NOT use words that state or imply a comparison of the
offerors response to the solicitation requirements with the responses of another
DO NOT let hearsay knowledge of an offerors prior
performance influence your evaluation of the current proposal being evaluated.
However if you have detailed personal knowledge of bad performance that MAY be
used in the evaluation. You CAN use your knowledge of what is required to
accomplish a task in your evaluation of the proposal.
IN THE EVENT OFFEROR HAS NO RECORD OF RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE,
OR INFORMATION ON PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE OFFEROR WILL NOT BE
EVALUATED EITHER FAVORABLY OR UNFAVORABLY ON PAST PERFORMANCE. A NEUTRAL RATING
WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THIS EVALUATION FACTOR.
DO NOT write comments that state a Government opinion or
DO NOT ask a question unless the question will have an
impact on the overall score or be relevant in the PCOs negotiations with the