Technical Evaluation Factors: How the Government Scores Your Proposal

Federal agencies evaluate proposals using criteria published in the solicitation. Understanding this process helps you write proposals that score well.

The evaluation framework:

• Section L — Instructions for proposal content
• Section M — Evaluation criteria and their relative importance
• Evaluation team — Government personnel who score proposals
• Source Selection Authority — Official who makes award decision

Evaluation process overview:

1. Proposals received by deadline
2. Initial compliance check (all required elements present?)
3. Technical evaluation against criteria
4. Price/cost evaluation
5. Past performance evaluation
6. Best value tradeoff (if applicable)
7. Award decision

Key principle:

Evaluators can only score what you write. They won't assume capabilities you don't describe. Make it easy for them to find and credit your strengths.

Typical evaluation structure:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

• Subfactor 1.1: Understanding of requirements
• Subfactor 1.2: Technical solution
• Subfactor 1.3: Innovation/value-added features

Factor 2: Management Approach

• Subfactor 2.1: Program management
• Subfactor 2.2: Quality control
• Subfactor 2.3: Risk management

Factor 3: Key Personnel

• Subfactor 3.1: Qualifications
• Subfactor 3.2: Relevant experience

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Price/Cost

Relative importance:

Section M specifies how factors relate:

• "Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2"
• "Factors 1 and 2 combined are more important than Factor 3"
• "All non-price factors combined are significantly more important than price"

These statements guide how you allocate proposal effort and resources.

Common rating scales:

Rating	Definition
Outstanding/Exceptional	Exceeds requirements, significant strengths, very low risk
Good/Very Good	Meets and may exceed some requirements, strengths outweigh weaknesses
Acceptable/Satisfactory	Meets requirements, no significant strengths or weaknesses
Marginal	Doesn't fully meet requirements, weaknesses offset strengths
Unacceptable	Fails to meet requirements, significant deficiencies

Color coding (some agencies):

• Blue — Exceptional
• Green — Acceptable
• Yellow — Marginal
• Red — Unacceptable

Numerical scoring:

Some agencies use point systems:

• Outstanding: 90-100 points
• Good: 70-89 points
• Acceptable: 50-69 points
• Marginal: 30-49 points
• Unacceptable: 0-29 points

Strength:

An aspect of the proposal that exceeds requirements or enhances the probability of successful performance.

Examples:

• Innovative approach that reduces risk
• Key personnel with directly relevant experience
• Additional capabilities beyond requirements
• Proven past performance on similar work

Weakness:

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Examples:

• Approach that doesn't fully address a requirement
• Personnel with limited relevant experience
• Unclear or incomplete descriptions
• Missing information

Significant Weakness:

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Deficiency:

A material failure to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases performance risk to unacceptable level.

Impact on ratings:

• Multiple strengths, no weaknesses → Outstanding
• Some strengths, minor weaknesses → Good
• Meets requirements, no significant issues → Acceptable
• Weaknesses that create doubt → Marginal
• Deficiencies → Unacceptable

Understanding requirements:

• Do you demonstrate you understand the problem?
• Have you addressed all requirements?
• Does your approach fit the context?

Technical approach:

• Is your solution technically sound?
• Will it actually work?
• Have you identified and mitigated risks?
• Is the approach realistic and feasible?

Management:

• Can you actually execute what you propose?
• Do you have adequate controls and processes?
• How will you handle problems?

Personnel:

• Are proposed staff qualified?
• Do they have relevant experience?
• Are they available?
• Is the team structured appropriately?

What earns high scores:

• Exceeding requirements with valuable enhancements
• Demonstrating deep understanding
• Proposing innovative, lower-risk approaches
• Strong, specific past performance
• Clear, well-organized presentation

Address every requirement:

• Use a compliance matrix to track
• Explicitly address each "shall" statement
• Don't assume evaluators will infer

Lead with benefits:

• Don't just describe what you'll do — explain why it's better
• "Our approach reduces schedule risk by..." not just "We will..."
• Connect features to government benefits

Be specific:

• Generalities don't earn strengths
• Quantify where possible
• Name names, cite specific experience
• "Our team has 500 years combined experience" → less compelling than specific project examples

Organize for evaluators:

• Follow RFP structure exactly
• Use headings that match evaluation criteria
• Make strengths easy to find
• Use graphics to reinforce key points

Avoid weaknesses:

• Address potential concerns proactively
• Don't leave gaps or ambiguities
• Explain anything unusual
• If you're light somewhere, acknowledge and mitigate

How tradeoff analysis works:

In best value procurements, the government compares technical scores against price to determine best value:

• Is a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal worth the extra cost?
• What is the government getting for the price difference?
• Are the strengths meaningful to successful performance?

Tradeoff documentation:

The Source Selection Authority must document:

• What discriminators justify the decision
• Why higher price is (or isn't) worth the added value
• How the decision serves the government's best interest

Implications for proposals:

• Your strengths must be worth paying for
• Generic strengths don't justify price premiums
• Discriminators must reduce risk or increase value

Example tradeoff:

"Offeror A is rated Outstanding and priced at $10M. Offeror B is rated Good and priced at $8M. Offeror A's strengths include proven experience with the exact system being replaced and a technical approach that eliminates integration risk. The $2M premium is justified by reduced risk and higher probability of on-time delivery."

Proposal problems that hurt scores:

Compliance failures:

• Not addressing all requirements
• Missing required sections
• Exceeding page limits
• Wrong format

Technical issues:

• Approach doesn't fully meet requirements
• Solution is technically flawed
• Risks not identified or mitigated
• Unrealistic claims

Presentation issues:

• Hard to follow or poorly organized
• Vague, generic language
• Inconsistencies between sections
• Poor quality (typos, formatting errors)

Strategic errors:

• Not understanding what evaluators value
• Focusing on wrong things
• Underinvesting in important areas
• Not differentiating from competitors

How to avoid these:

• Thorough compliance reviews
• Color team reviews (Pink, Red, Gold)
• Write to evaluation criteria, not just requirements
• Give evaluators what they need to score you highly