C13_Past_Performance_Worksheet_RELEASED_v1_Jun2024_0004.docx
DOCX document 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P2025R0066
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Rating Worksheet for a federal contract opportunity related to the Knife River Indian Village National Historic Site. The worksheet provides detailed guidance for evaluating an offeror's past performance, focusing on three key criteria: recency, relevancy, and quality of previous contract work. The evaluation will assess the contractor's capability to complete similar contracts, technical knowledge, management skills, and overall performance risk.
The document outlines a comprehensive evaluation process that includes reviewing up to five reference contracts, examining performance information from sources like the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and System for Award Management (SAM), and potentially contacting customer references. If an offeror lacks sufficient past performance information, they may receive a "Neutral" rating. The worksheet is specifically tied to Solicitation 140P2025R0066 for the Elbee Bend Bank Stabilization project, issued by the Department of the Interior National Park Service National Office, with provisions for detailed performance assessment and reference verification.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
Preparer’s Fill-in and Required Signature (Remove blue highlight prior to final issuance)
PAST PERFORMANCE RATING WORKSHEET
| SOLICITATION |
| 140P202xRxxxx – PARK PMIS# |
| OFFEROR |
| xxxxxx |
| EVALUATOR |
| Full name |
| DATE |
| enter date |
Rating Rate the proposal relative to the standards in the Rating Plan contained in the Source Selection Plan (SSP)
| EVALUATED RATING |
| Choose an item. |
GENERAL NOTES
· Note 1
· Note 2
· Note 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA
(Solicitation Section M)
Past Performance demonstrating 1) proven capability to successfully complete recent and relevant contracts of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; 2) strong technical knowledge and skill required in this solicitation; and 3) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and may be more favorably rated. Past Performance that does not demonstrate these attributes present higher levels of risk and may be less favorably rated.
Responses to received Section J – “Attachment x – Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ),” shall also be considered in the evaluation of this Factor x – Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to contact or not contact the customer references provided.
The Government shall also utilize information obtained from other sources, such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and System for Award Management (SAM), as well as contacting other persons possessing Past Performance information relevant to this evaluation.
If adverse Past Performance information is obtained, the Offeror shall be provided an opportunity to address it. In the case of an Offeror is without a record of relevant Past Performance, or for whom information on Past Performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, per FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have a “Neutral” rating.
Past Performance evaluations and documentation shall address the following three (3) items:
| (i) | Recency: Recency is expressed as the time period during for which Past Performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the Relevancy of Past Performance information; |
| (ii) | Relevancy: In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of Relevancy include but are not limited to: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of Key Personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming; and |
| (iii) | Quality: The Past Performance evaluation conducted in support of the current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of an Offeror's Past Performance on previous contracts; rather, the Past Performance evaluation process gathers information from their customers on how well the Offeror performed on those previous contracts. The Past Performance evaluation will review all Past Performance information collected and determine the quality of an Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information. |
REFERENCE 1
| CONTRACT (PROJECT TITLE) |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| REFERENCE SOURCE |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx (i.e., Joe_Smith@NFS.Gov, PPIRS, etc.) |
NOTES
· Note 1
REFERENCE 2
| CONTRACT (PROJECT TITLE) |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| REFERENCE SOURCE |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx (i.e., Joe_Smith@NFS.Gov, PPIRS, etc.) |
NOTES
· Note 1
REFERENCE 3
| CONTRACT (PROJECT TITLE) |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| REFERENCE SOURCE |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx (i.e., Joe_Smith@NFS.Gov, PPIRS, etc.) |
NOTES
· Note 1
REFERENCE 4
| CONTRACT (PROJECT TITLE) |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| REFERENCE SOURCE |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx (i.e., Joe_Smith@NFS.Gov, PPIRS, etc.) |
NOTES
· Note 1
REFERENCE 5
| CONTRACT (PROJECT TITLE) |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| REFERENCE SOURCE |
| xxxxxxxxxxxx (i.e., Joe_Smith@NFS.Gov, PPIRS, etc.) |
NOTES
· Note 1
| C13 Past Performance Worksheet | Page 1 of 2 | v1 Jun2024 |
| Source Selection Information | See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .