Adjectival Rating System

The Adjectival Rating System is the evaluation methodology most commonly used in federal negotiated procurements (best value tradeoff and LPTA) to score technical and management proposal factors, assigning qualitative ratings such as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable based on the proposal's identified strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

What is the Adjectival Rating System?

The standard DoD adjectival rating scale (defined in DFARS PGI 215.305 and widely adopted by civilian agencies) assigns one of five ratings to each non-cost evaluation factor: Outstanding (proposal indicates an exceptional approach with multiple significant strengths and no significant weaknesses or deficiencies), Good (proposal indicates a thorough and well-thought-out approach with at least one significant strength and no significant weaknesses or deficiencies), Acceptable (proposal meets requirements but has no notable strengths or significant weaknesses), Marginal (proposal has not demonstrated a sufficient approach and has one or more significant weaknesses requiring correction), and Unacceptable (proposal does not meet requirements; it has a deficiency that cannot be corrected through discussions). Each rating is built up from the evaluator's identification of specific strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses in the proposal narrative. Contractors must understand the adjectival rating framework to write proposals that accumulate strengths rather than merely meeting requirements, because "Acceptable" in a best value competition typically loses to "Good" or "Outstanding" on equally priced offers.

Why the Adjectival Rating System matters for government contractors

Understanding adjectival ratings transforms how a proposal is written. Proposal teams that merely "check the box" on requirements produce Acceptable proposals. Firms that understand what an Outstanding or Good rating requires, multiple significant strengths in the technical approach, discriminating features that exceed requirements, write proposals that explicitly build toward those rating levels.

Example

A proposal manager reviews a draft technical approach and identifies that it describes capabilities adequately but does not articulate specific innovations or past performance examples that exceed requirements. Knowing that the adjectival scale rewards explicit strengths, the manager directs authors to add three concrete examples of how the proposed approach surpasses the minimum requirements, positioning the proposal for a Good or Outstanding technical rating rather than an Acceptable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are the adjectival rating labels the same across all agencies?

The five-level scale (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) is standard for DoD and widely used in civilian agencies following DoD guidance. However, some agencies use slightly different labels or combine levels. Always check the specific solicitation's Section M for the rating definitions that will apply to the competition.

Can a proposal recover from a Marginal rating through discussions?

Yes. One purpose of discussions in a negotiated procurement is to give offerors the opportunity to correct significant weaknesses that led to Marginal ratings. If the contracting officer conducts discussions, they must identify significant weaknesses and give offerors the chance to respond in Final Proposal Revisions. A proposal that receives a Marginal rating and is included in the competitive range can potentially be upgraded through discussions.

Is an Unacceptable rating always fatal to a proposal?

Yes. An Unacceptable rating on a technical factor means the proposal has a deficiency, a failure to meet a required element, that makes it ineligible for award in its current form. If the proposal is in the competitive range, discussions would identify the deficiency and the offeror would need to correct it in the Final Proposal Revision. If the Unacceptable rating is on a mandatory pass/fail factor, the proposal is typically excluded immediately.

Does the adjectival rating affect price weighting?

In a best value tradeoff evaluation, adjectival ratings on technical and management factors are compared against price to determine which offer represents the best value to the government. A higher adjectival rating on technical factors can justify a higher price if the source selection authority determines the strengths are worth the additional cost.