2026 01 30 80MSFC26R0002 Appendix B DRFP to RFP Change Log.pdf

125 L L-36 Volume III – Past Performance Volume Instructions (d) (2)

Content - For Offerors, a referenced contract’s content relevancy will be determined based on how well the work performed aligns with the applicable elements of Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (see PWS WYE Percentage Assignment Table below), and for subcontractors, how well the work performed aligns with the subcontractor’s proposed workshare, as indicated in the PWS WYE Percentage Assignment Table.

For the Offeror, referenced contract(s) shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least four of the 14 PWS elements identified in the PWS WYE Percentage Assignment Table [i.e., PWS Sections

2.0 (2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.10), 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4.0] to be considered relevant in content. For proposed subcontractor(s), relevancy will be determined relative to the content element(s) assigned to that subcontractor.

Content - For Offerors, a referenced contract’s content relevancy will be determined based on how well the work performed aligns with the applicable content elements in the Past Performance Content Element WYE Table, shown below. Content elements are groupings of varied Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement elements and have been established for Past Performance evaluation purposes only.

For the Offeror, referenced contract(s) shall demonstrate relevant experience in at least two of the five content element groups identified in the Past Performance Content Element WYE Table to be considered relevant in content. An Offeror’s referenced contract can demonstrate relevant experience for any of the elements in a content element group to be considered relevant for the entire group.

For subcontractors, a referenced contract’s content relevancy will be determined based on how well the work performed in the referenced contract aligns with the subcontractor’s proposed workshare, as indicated in the PWS Element WYE Percentage Assignment Table. For proposed subcontractor(s), relevancy will be determined relative to the specific individual PWS elements assigned to that subcontractor.

154 M M-6 Factor III – Past Performance Volume Evaluation, (b)

In determining the overall relevancy of individual referenced contracts, each referenced contract will be evaluated in the order of size, content, and complexity. If a referenced contract is determined to be not relevant in either size, content, or complexity, it will be determined not relevant overall and will not be further evaluated. NASA reserves the right to evaluate past performance referenced contracts for subcontractors other than major subcontractors that have the potential to impact performance of the proposed contract. If an Offeror is a new joint venture (JV) without a past performance record, past performance will be evaluated for each individual JV partner for which a referenced contract is submitted, in accordance with the relevancy thresholds established for the Offeror (see also 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(f)). Participation of an individual JV partner in another JV will be evaluated provided that the partner’s sole effort is clearly described and meets established relevancy criteria.

References for protégé members of any proposed mentor-protégé joint venture, HUBZone members of any HUBZone joint venture, and 8(a) participants of any 8(a) joint venture will be evaluated in accordance with the relevancy

In determining the overall relevancy of individual referenced contracts, each referenced contract will be evaluated in the order of size, content, and complexity. If a referenced contract is determined to be not relevant in either size, content, or complexity, it will be determined not relevant overall and will not be further evaluated. NASA reserves the right to evaluate past performance referenced contracts for subcontractors other than major subcontractors that have the potential to impact performance of the proposed contract. As part of its confidence level assessment, the Government will consider the past performance of other entities (e.g., parent, affiliate) where meaningful involvement is clearly described; however, the Government is not obligated to assess similar impact on the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort as those references performed by the prime offeror. The Government may also consider other factors that contribute to overall confidence such as the breadth of relevant coverage across the applicable PWS elements and demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor. If an Offeror is a new joint venture (JV) without a past performance record, past performance thresholds established for proposed subcontractors (see 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), 13 C.F.R. § 126.616(f), and 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(f), respectively).

Parent or affiliate references for the Offeror will be held to the relevancy thresholds established for the Offeror.

will be evaluated for each individual JV partner for which a referenced contract is submitted, in accordance with the relevancy thresholds established for the Offeror (see also 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(f)). Participation of an individual JV partner in another JV will be evaluated provided that the partner’s sole effort is clearly described and meets established relevancy criteria. When an Offeror submits a past performance reference for work performed as part of a populated JV, the Offeror must clearly delineate the specific portion of the effort performed by that entity, independent of the overall JV performance. “Sole effort” in this context refers to the individual partner’s contribution, not the populated JV’s collective performance. The past performance submission should identify as applicable: the partner’s specific scope of work and functional responsibilities; the percentage or relative share of work performed by that partner; key deliverables, outcomes, or performance results directly attributable to that partner; and, the partner’s management, technical, or operational control over its portion of the work. The Government will evaluate such past performance based on the relevance and quality of the proposing partner’s