B.  Don'ts.

Don't cut and paste from another SSDD3.  All SSDDs are unique because all acquisitions and all RFPs are different.  It is good to understand what a good SSDD looks like but it is bad to "fill in the blanks" from a previous one that you happen to have, or that is attached to this Guide.  No SSA or CO would enjoy making a statement in an official record like the one in the referenced GAO case.

 Don't quantify by assigning numerical scores to the evaluation factor ratings.  The rating definitions in MP5315.3 are qualitative and subjective, not numerical.

 Don't focus the discussion on only one offeror.  The SSDD compares assessments of the successful offeror against the others.  Even if there are a large number of offerors, the SSDD must make an assessment of the relative standing of the offerors based upon an application of the relative order of importance of the evaluation criteria in order to reduce the field of potential protests.

 Don't confuse mission capability technical rating (color/adjectival) with mission capability risk rating.  While color/adjectival rating focuses on the strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies of the proposed approach submitted in response to the requirement (exceeded, met, or did not meet), mission capability risk rating relates to the weaknesses of the proposed approach (negative impacts to schedule, cost, or performance).

 Don't use color or adjectival ratings that are inconsistent with the terms used in the standard definitions for those terms in MP5315.3. (i.e. color or adjectival ratings with contradicting supporting language, such as a GREEN or BLUE that is "clearly superior".  The strength or strengths assigned to a GREEN or BLUE along with the magnitude of the benefit to the Air Force will establish superior aspects.)

 Don't identify or list weaknesses or a significant weakness without discussing them and their importance to the thought process.

Don't roll up subfactor ratings into an overall factor rating, (per MP5315.3, paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2) except for the performance confidence assessment.  If subfactors are used, color ratings and risk ratings remain at the subfactor level only.

Don't treat an unknown performance confidence assessment favorably or unfavorably.  (Don't disqualify an offeror for having an unknown confidence rating.)  However, in a comparative assessment and if stated in the Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M) greater consideration may be given to those offerors who have more positive and recent/relevant past performance.

___________________________________________________________________

3 See Team BOS/Naples-Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen, B-298865.3, December 28, 2007 where the GAO denied the protest; however, the CO admitted erroneous references in the Source Selection Authority Decision resulted from cut and paste from a sample SSAD.