12 DRFP 25R0001 - PPI Relevancy Baseline.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Warrior Care Global Support Draft RFP
- Solicitation number
- H9240025R0001
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This is a Past Performance Information evaluation matrix template that outlines the ratings criteria and relevancy baselines for evaluating contractor performance. The template defines performance rating definitions across five levels (Exceptional/Blue, Very Good/Purple, Satisfactory/Green, Marginal/Yellow, and Unsatisfactory/Red) and confidence assessment ratings (Substantial, Satisfactory, Neutral, Limited, and No Confidence).
The relevancy criteria establish four tiers based on contract value and personnel: Very Relevant ($15M+, 75+ personnel), Relevant ($10M+, 50+ personnel), Somewhat Relevant ($5M+, 25+ personnel), and Not Relevant (less than $5M). The scoring system assigns points on a scale of 0-10 based on relevancy, with overall score ranges from 80-100 (Very Relevant) down to 1-29 (Not Relevant). The recency requirement specifies past performance within 3 years from solicitation issuance. This template appears to be part of a draft RFP for USSOCOM's Warrior Care Global Support program, which provides non-clinical case management and advocacy services for Special Operations Forces personnel.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 00B DRFP 25R0001 - Section M.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00C DRFP 25R0001 - SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| 05 DRFP 25R0001 - TE2 MSR Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| 08 DRFP 25R0001 - TE5 Historical Metrics.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 13 DRFP 25R0001 - Subcontractor Consent.docx | DOCX document | |
| CLS WCGS.pdf | ||
| 14 DRFP 25R0001 - Client Authorization.docx | DOCX document | |
| 16 DRFP 25R0001 - Resume Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| Additional CLS WCGS.pdf | ||
| Section J.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00A DRFP 25R0001 - Section L.docx | DOCX document | |
| 06 DRFP 25R0001 - TE3 Perform Locs Skills Quals.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 07 DRFP 25R0001 - TE4 Travel Authorization.docx | DOCX document | |
| 11 DRFP 25R0001 - PPI.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15 DRFP 25R0001 - QnA Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10 DRFP 25R0001 - Oral Presentation WARNO.docx | DOCX document | |
| 03 DRFP 25R0001 - Price Matrix.XLSX | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 04 DRFP 25R0001 - TE1 Service Delivery Summary (SDS).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 09 DRFP 25R0001 - WD List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Factor 3
| Past Performance Factor Ratings | |||||
| Recency | 3 years from the date of issuance of the solicitation | Performance Rating Definitions | Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method | Criterion Relevancy Score | |
| Exceptional/Blue | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| Adjectival Rating | Description | Rating | Very Relevant | Relevant | Somewhat Relevant | Not Relevant | |||||||
| Relevancy | Very Good/Purple | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective. | Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. | Score Value | 10 Points | 6 Points | 3 Points | 0 Points | ||||
| Adjectival Rating | Description | Satisfactory/Green | Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. | Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. | ||||||||
| Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. | Yellow/Marginal | Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. | 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. | Relevancy Ratings Ranges | |||||||
| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. | Unsatisfactory/Red | Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. | Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. | Rating | Very Relevant | Relevant | Somewhat Relevant | Not Relevant | |||
| Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. | 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. | Overall Score | 80-100 | 60-79 | 30-59 | 1-29 | |||||
| Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
PP Relevancy Matrix
| SECTION L - Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline | ||||
| Section L4.5 | Very Relevant (10) | Relevant (6) | Somewhat Relevant (3) | Not Relevant (0) |
| Similar Magnitude and Complexity- Which requires similar organizational structures, management expertise, and business processes required by this solicitation | ||||
| Point Range | 80-100 | 60-79 | 30-59 | 0-29 |
| Magnitude and Contract Type | ||||
| Current Contract Value (excluding unexercised options) | $15M+ | $10M+ | $5M+ | Less than $5M |
| Number of Contracted Personnel | 75+ | 50+ | 25+ | <25 |
| Complexity | ||||
| Security Classification Requirements Personnel | TS/SCI Pers Cleared | TS Pers Cleared | Secret only Pers Cleared | No personnel with clearance |
| Performance Locations and Geographical requirements | Performance required in 10 or more locations with a minimum of 1 which requires ITAR compliance | Less than 10/more than 5 locations with a minimum of 1 which requires ITAR compliance | More than one CONUS location | Performance required at one location |
| Similarity of the Scope | ||||
| Variety of Labor Categories | >7 labor categories | 5-6 | 3-4 | <3 |
| DoD and OGA Support | DoD | Other Government Agencies only | Commercial only |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .