FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant present and past work performance history to draw a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform in a proposed Market Segment. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how recent an effort is. Only contracts/task orders within the past five (5) years of the date of the solicitation will be considered recent. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort required by this solicitation. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects similar to this solicitation in scope, and complexity to the range of services required as described in the SOO. • For scope, each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort as found in the SOO for the specific Market Segment that the Offeror submitted a proposal under. Scope is defined as subject matter that is relevant to the Program Areas stated in the SOO. For complexity, each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort relative to the specific Market Segment the Offeror submitted a proposal under. Complexity is defined as how intricate the subject matter is relevant to performance across one or more Proficiency Areas and/or Market Segments in the SOO. The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation will also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. For subcontractors/teaming members/joint venture partners, the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past performance work history as it relates to the specific scope of work the subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do for this effort. For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort (Market Segment) regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do the work. The definitions of relevancy are as follows: Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous efforts. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions that have been implemented and will evaluate their effectiveness. To arrive at an overall performance confidence assessment, the evaluation team will consider: • The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference • The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort • The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is contributing to the effort • The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant present or past performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown” confidence rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Relevant performance at the prime or subcontractor level also will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than no record of relevant performance. Likewise, more recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive impact the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall performance confidence assessment. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment is based on the Offeror’s overall record of efforts deemed recent/relevant, the quality of performance on those efforts, and the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below: SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Contract
FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant present and past work performance history to draw a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform in a proposed Market Segment. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how recent an effort is. Only contracts/task orders within the past five (5) years of the date of the solicitation will be considered recent. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort required by this solicitation. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects similar to this solicitation in scope, and complexity to the range of services required as described in the SOO. • For scope, each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort as found in the SOO for the specific Market Segment that the Offeror submitted a proposal under. Scope is defined as subject matter work that is relevant performed in one or more Proficiency Areas within a Market Segment and relative to the one or more Program Areas stated in the SOO. • For complexity, each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort relative to the specific Market Segment the Offeror submitted a proposal under. Complexity is defined as how intricate the subject matter is relevant to performance across one or more Proficiency Areas and/or within a Market Segments Segment stated in the SOO. The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation will also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. For subcontractors/teaming members/joint venture partners, the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past performance work history as it relates to the specific scope of work the subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do for this effort. For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort (Market Segment) regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do the work. The definitions of relevancy are as follows: Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous efforts. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions that have been implemented and will evaluate their effectiveness. To arrive at an overall performance confidence assessment, the evaluation team will consider: • The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference • The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort • The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is contributing to the effort • The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant present or past performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown” confidence rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Relevant performance at the prime or subcontractor level also will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than no record of relevant performance. Likewise, more recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive impact the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall performance confidence assessment. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment is based on the Offeror’s overall record of efforts deemed recent/relevant, the quality of performance on those efforts, and the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below: SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Contract