5 Section M - Evaluation Criteria IV1.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

BASE INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

DD MMMM 202Y

Prepared By:

AFLCMC/HNIB

15 Eglin Street, Building 1607 Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-1700

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to DOD and US DOD contractors only; Administrative or Operational Use; DD MMMM 202Y. Other requests for this document shall be referred to AFLCMC/HNI (DOD Controlling Office) 15 Eglin Street, Building 1607, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-1700.

HANDLING AND DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Comply with distribution statements and destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Number Date Description Section(s) Affected

DRAFT

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for IDIQ

This proposal will be a best value conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The IDIQ may be extended to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 15 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors) and is determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. To arrive at a best value decision, the designated Decision Authority will integrate the team’s evaluations of the Offerors’ proposals against the factors described herein. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the designated Decision Authority reasonably determines that the expected benefits of the non-price criteria outweigh the price difference.

The Government reserves the right to award without interchanges. Therefore, each initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

This is an acquisition under NAICS code 517111. The Small Disadvantaged Business Hardware Pool NAICS code (Gate 3) is 334210.

1.2. Communications

The Government may initiate communications for the purpose of resolving questions about, gaining a better understanding of, or addressing flaws in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications with some, none, or all the Offerors if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. In determining whether to conduct communications, the Government will consider the correction potential of the proposal, and an Offeror may be excluded from communications due to the quality of its initial proposal. To safeguard Offeror information in communicating Notices (or any other Offeror-specific communication from the Government), each Offeror will be assigned a unique password to be used when opening electronic files transmitted by the Government. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial quote, as received.

1.3. Rejection of Unreasonable Proposals

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions when compared to Government requirements, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4. Proposal Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors to be eligible for the IDIQ. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the proposal may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for the IDIQ. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award The following evaluation factors in Table 1 below will be used to evaluate each proposal in this 3- Gate evaluation process. If the offeror is looking to join the IDIQ to be awarded Task Orders (TOs), then Offerors are required to submit both Gate 1 and Gate 2 factor responses upon submitting their proposal package. If the offeror is interested in joining the Small Disadvantaged Business Hardware Pool only, they are required to submit the entirety of Gate 3 only.

Volume Element ID Evaluation Page Limit PWS Ref.

Gate 1 Volume 1 Information Contract Information 1 N/A

Volume 2 Factor 1 Prior Experience 5 N/A Factor 2 Facility Clearance 1 N/A

Gate 2 Volume 1 Information Contract Information 1 N/A

Volume 2

Factor 1 Technical Proposal 30 3 Subfactor 1 Global Management Support Plan 2.1 Subfactor 2 Task Order Support Plan 2.1.2, 3.4 Subfactor 3 Staff Management Plan 2.6, 2.14, 3.9.4, 3.9.5 Subfactor 4 Professional Employee Compensation

Compliance N/A

Subfactor 5 Quality Control Plan 2.18

Volume 3

Factor 2 Small Business 10 N/A Subfactor 1 Small Business Participation

Commitment N/A

Subfactor 2 Small Business Participation Plan N/A Volume 4 Factor 3 Past Performance 10 N/A

Gate 3 Volume 1 Information Contract Information 1 N/A

Volume 2

Factor 1 Logistics 8 2.13 Subfactor 1 International Shipping 4.2 Subfactor 2 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan 2.12, 4.5,

4.5.1 Subfactor 3 Capability and Operations Plan 2.1

Volume 3 Factor 2 Past Performance 10 N/A Table 1: Evaluation Factors

2.1. Relative Importance

All factors in Gates 1 and 2 are of equal value. There are no factors in this evaluation that are more important than another. Gate 3 Factors, while separate, are of equal importance, but are reserved solely for Small Disadvantaged Businesses in the Hardware Pool of the IDIQ and are not comparable to Gates 1 or 2.

2.2. Evaluation Methodology

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria established and identified in section L and M. The receipt of an evaluation rating of Unacceptable or No Confidence in any single factor or subfactor may result in the overall proposal being determined ineligible for award.

Evaluators will follow the specific evaluation standards noted for each evaluation factor and summarize their Gate 2 evaluations using the adjectival rating tables within.

3. Gate 1 Each response will be scored on an acceptable/unacceptable basis according to the details defined below, a failure on any single acceptable/unacceptable criteria below will make the proposal ineligible to proceed to Gate 2 and thus ineligible for the IDIQ, with no further evaluation accomplished by the Government. Factors 1 and 2 will separately receive acceptable or unacceptable determinations.

3.1. Volume 1

3.1.1. Information – Contract Information

The Government will verify the information provided.

3.2. Volume 2

3.2.1. Factor 1 – Prior Experience

Prior Experience will be a Gate 1 factor evaluated by and rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the factor level. The prior experience evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to provide network services that meet the requirements based on a demonstrated record of experience by the proposing business entity for a

Government or Non-government client. To qualify as acceptable demonstrated experience, the Offeror must show the following:

a) Demonstrated experience within 1) the Department of Defense (DoD) with a minimum of Major Command (MAJCOM) experience or 2) non-DoD Enterprise-wide level experience

b) Demonstrated and discrete evidence/data points of improved operational efficiency, user experience, and mission effectiveness

c) Demonstrated success in a multi-solution, multi-vendor environment

d) Demonstrated and qualitatively shown completing Tasks/Projects on time and in Budget

e) Demonstrated activities performed to monitor, manage, and respond to customer notifications on availability and performance of network(s).

For the purposes of this evaluation, “Relevant” is defined as work covering the BIM PWS scope.

“Recent” is defined as work occurring within the last five (5) calendar years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022). The evaluation will determine that the items (a-

e) are both relevant and recent. Should any item be evaluated as not relevant or not recent, this subfactor will be deemed “Unacceptable” and will not progress to the Gate 2 evaluation.

To be considered acceptable, an offeror must demonstrate at least three (3) IT Network Operations relevant prior experience questionnaires and no more than five (5). All provided questionnaires must be signed and complete to be evaluated, any non-complete or non-signed questionnaires will not be evaluated. The offeror must also provide at least one, but up to 2 prior experience questionnaires relating to classified network(s). Demonstrating experience on operating, maintaining, or monitoring classified network(s). Offerors not meeting these criteria will be deemed “unacceptable” and will not progress to the Gate 2 Evaluation.

3.2.2. Factor 2 – Facility Clearance

This factor is utilized to understand if the Offeror can facilitate classified material. This factor is evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. To be deemed Acceptable the Offeror must provide a current facility clearance certification at a minimum level of “Secret”. Failure to provide this information, inaccurate information, a Facility Clearance below Secret, no Facility, or providing a CAGE Code of another company without explanation will be deemed “Unacceptable”.

Factor Acceptable Unacceptable

Facility Clearance

Provided a current facility clearance certification at a minimum level of “Secret”.

Did not provide a current facility clearance certification at a minimum level of “Secret” OR provided inaccurate information, a clearance below Secret, no Facility, or another companies CAGE code.

4. Gate 2

Offerors that receive an “Acceptable” rating for Gate 1 factors will proceed to Gate 2 evaluation.

Offerors will be notified if they have passed onto the Gate 2 evaluation. The Government will evaluate proposals in Gate 2, based on four (4) volumes. Volume 1 will be verifying the information only. Volumes 2 and 3 will be receive Acceptable or Unacceptable determinations.

Volume 4 will receive a performance confidence assessment rating.

4.1. Volume 1

4.1.1. Information – Contract Information

The Government will verify the information provided.

4.2. Volume 2

4.2.1. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail system; Acceptable or Unacceptable. The overall factors rating will depend on the subfactors combined rating, should any subfactor be deemed unacceptable the entire factor will be unacceptable. The rating for the Technical Factor will be based on the Governments assessment of the following:

4.2.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Global Management Support Plan

The Offeror must fully respond to and provide a Global Management Support Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offerors plan to ensure that it addressed the intent and scalability efforts as it relates to implementing requirements within the BIM IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS). To be evaluated as acceptable the supplied plan should include, at a minimum, items (a-g). Each of the below components will be analyzed by the Government for completeness, efficacy in communicating approach and viability of the plans proposed.

a) Provides a relevant Capability Statement for the Offeror

b) The Operational Plan demonstrates the Offeror can sufficiently handle the breadth and scale of transformational tasks across multiple locations, with minimal risk to the Government.

c) The approach is feasible and comprehensive to execution at multiple locations in the following instances:

1) Single Base and respective Geographically Separate Units (GSUs)

2) Multiple Bases and respective GSUs

d) Demonstrates an understanding and knowledge of applicable bilateral international Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) addressing DoD contractor concerns in host nations

e) The staffing plan clearly demonstrates the ability to organizationally staff to support DAF CONUS and OCONUS scalability.

f) The provided plan to adhere to Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits and requirements is realistic

g) The provided Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan is comprehensive, detailed, realistic and has the required pieces specified in Section L.

h) The provided ATO contribution plan is comprehensive, detailed, and realistic.

4.2.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Task Order Support Plan

In this subfactor the Offeror must fully respond to and propose a TO support plan for evaluation.

This support plan and solution will be evaluated on the technical, programmatic, and administrative solutions posed to a DAF sample base problem (Section J, Attachment X). The Government will evaluate this TO Support Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy, efficiency, soundness, reasonableness and inherent risks of the offeror's technical approach and demonstrated capability to design, install, integrate, verify and deliver a solution to the sample problem/base requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's proposal demonstrates an adequate approach to the Sample Problem, which demonstrates an adequate understanding of the technical requirements, with a low or moderate risk, through an assessment of the following criteria.

Each item (a-k) is required to be incorporated in the Offerors response. The response will be evaluated for the inclusion of these items (a-k) at a minimum:

a) Articulates throughout the Offerors understanding of the requirements and include the methodologies for accomplishing the requirements.

b) Demonstrates, understanding and knowledge of applicable bilateral international SOFA where the Offeror addresses DoD contractor concerns in host nations.

c) Articulates how the Offeror intends to comply with the Continuity of Operation Plan and Concept of Operations of the DAF.

d) Clear articulation of any/all unique spectrum and connection challenges that could be faced in the sample base location.

e) Provides a notional solution architecture and plan for the build, deployment, and operations of systems/services described in the BIM IDIQ PWS that supports the performance and reliability goals of the DAF.

f) Articulates how the solution can increase efficiency and effectiveness while delivering quality of service and quality of experience.

g) Demonstrates increasing use of automation and reduction in manpower for IT Asset Management, Endpoint Management, Security Configuration Management, Vulnerability Management, Threat Detection & Remediation, Integration w/ Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) & Analytics, Program Management, Engineering Services, and Transition Services.

h) Articulates how these solutions are delivered (locally, enterprise, aaS, etc.) and notes their anticipated time to deliver once the Government authorizes work.

i) Articulates how the Offeror plans to staff appropriate personnel and how these personnel will be made available to the Government including mission essential personnel during contingency operations.

j) Articulates an overarching management plan for how the offeror plans to schedule, administer, manage, and execute all requirements within the BIM IDIQ PWS.

k) Demonstrates how they will create and manage an overarching Master Schedule that sequences all required activities.

Should the Offerors solution merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the proposal it will be evaluated as unacceptable. If the offeror provided any additional or recommended approaches outside of scope for this sample base they will not be taken into consideration and will not add to or inhibit the evaluation process.

4.2.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Staff Management Plan

The Offeror must fully respond to the Staffing/Equipment Plan for the Sample TO. The Government will evaluate this plan based on the inclusion of the following details, failure to include any of the items (a-e) will result in an Unacceptable rating for the subfactor and the entire Factor 1 portion. To qualify as an acceptable Staff Management Plan, the offer must show, at minimum, the following:

a) Addresses staffing for the sample base.

b) Provides an approach for personnel recruitment, training, obtaining security clearances, telework and retention of personnel.

c) Provides the number of personnel, by labor category, and hours proposed to perform services in accordance with Section J, Attachment X, Sample TO.

d) Provides a description of the methodology service, and maintain contractor provided solution.

e) Provides the quantities and pieces of contractor furnished equipment proposed in order to perform services in accordance with Section J, Attachment X, Sample Task Order.

4.2.1.4. Subfactor 4 – Professional Employee Compensation Compliance The Offeror must submit their Professional Employee Compensation Compliance (PECC) for evaluation. The failure to address any of these points will reflect negatively. If items a-c is not addressed in totality this section will be deemed unacceptable.

The Offerors PECC should:

a) Demonstrate an average unburdened direct labor rate and fringe benefits provided for its professional employees (as defined in 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 541).

b) Reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed

c) Articulate how the compensation structure can obtain and keeping suitably qualified personnel

4.2.1.5. Subfactor 5 – Quality Control (QC) Plan

The Government will evaluate the provided QC plan. The QC plan will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. To be evaluated as acceptable, the plan must address the requirements of Section J, Attachment X, Sample TO to include the following as a minimum:

a) Scheduling of services

b) How the offeror intends to effectively implement equipment management, emergency responses, hazardous materials, and safety programs.

c) Comply with SLAs

d) Receive notice of problems

e) Response to problems and deficiencies

f) Handle challenging problems

g) Perform inspections and Frequency of inspections

h) Threat Analysis

4.3. Volume 3

4.3.1. Factor 2 – Small Business

4.3.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Small Business Participation Commitment

Small business participation commitment will be a Gate 2 factor evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Offerors must complete and sign the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), with all relevant supporting documentation, and will be evaluated on the following criteria: the Offeror shall:

To be acceptable the SBPCD must have all the following:

a) The SBPCD must be complete and signed

b) All relevant supporting documentation should be provided

c) Minimally achieve 30.00% of subcontracting dollars as allocated to small businesses

(section 2(a) of SBPCD template).

d) Minimally achieve DoD’s socioeconomic subcontracting goal of 15% subcontracting for any SDB designation.

e) The SBPCD must include 5 small business members, to include at least 1 Small

Disadvantaged Business (SDB) active in the 8(a) Business Development Program and at least 1 additional small business of any socioeconomic category.

Failure to meet any item will be deemed unacceptable, or failure to sign and commit to the document will be evaluated as unacceptable.

4.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Plan

The Offeror shall provide the Small Business Participation Plan as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The plan will evaluate these factors at a minimum:

a) Proposes a plan to utilize subcontractor relationships in-order-to meet and execute the requirements of the BIM PWS. Offerors should

b) Highlight measures implemented to vet the technical competency and practices of the subcontractor company

c) Provide relevant documentation supporting expected success in using that partner (e.g. past performance, stringent vetting process, etc.)

4.4. Volume 4

4.4.1. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Offeror was instructed to provide the following:

• A completed and signed Commercial and Government customers past performance questionnaire (Attachment X)

• Up to 5 past performance questionnaires; any experience unrelated directly to networking will not be considered.

Under no circumstances will the Government accept questionnaires sent directly by the Offeror.

Any questionnaires sent by the Offeror will not be evaluated. The evaluation team will ensure any questionnaires are legitimate and were not provided by the Offeror Offerors that did not provide past performance information within the above stated sources does not necessarily preclude them from continuance on the BIM IDIQ award but will be rated.

The Government will evaluate past performance in a variety of forms. The past performance questionnaires will be evaluated on a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Scale. The details of which are provided in the table below. In reviewing Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the questionnaires Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), System for Award Management (SAM), past performance questionnaires, and any other source deemed necessary to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

For the purposes of this Factors evaluation, “Relevant” is defined as work covering the BIM PWS scope. “Recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last five (5) calendar years (between 1 January 2018 through 31 December 2022). The evaluation will determine that the Offerors Past Performance is both relevant and recent.

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Recent Present/Past Performance is within the specified calendar years.

Not Recent Present/Past Performance is not within the specified calendar years.

Should any item be evaluated as either not relevant or not recent, that Past Performance will not be counted. Should this reduce the number of Past Performance records to zero (0) that will negatively affect the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Performance Confidence

Assessment Ratings Gate 2 - Factor 3 - Past Performance

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

5. Gate 3

5.1. Volume 1

5.1.1. Information – Contract Information

The Government will verify the information provided.

5.2. Volume 2

5.2.1. Factor 1 – Logistics

The entirety of Factor 1 is to be evaluated as a whole piece. Each subfactor will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any one Subfactor marked Unacceptable will make the entire factor unacceptable.

5.2.1.1. Subfactor 1 – International Shipping

The Government will evaluate this subfactor based on the Offerors demonstrated ability and knowledge on shipping and international shipping practices. To be evaluated as Acceptable the Offeror must provide at a minimum:

• Fully respond to and demonstrate the ability to meet the PWS requirements and the scalability of scope for DAF CONUS and OCONUS bases across various states and countries.

• Clearly demonstrates the ability and understanding of the differences between shipping and delivering to DAF CONUS and OCONUS locations o International/National Customs o Shipping o Delivery Services o Other Relevant Information

• Provided relevant information on how delivering to DAF OCONUS locations shall be conducted

5.2.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)

The Offeror must fully respond to and supply a SCRM Plan for evaluation. The provided Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan must be comprehensive, detailed, realistic and has the required pieces specified in Section L. The SCRM plan will be evaluated on addressing the following at a minimum:

a) Evaluation, full examination, review and scan process, or implementation of its full spectrum supply chain

b) Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of actual and potential threats vulnerabilities, and disruptions to the supply chain

c) Application of supply chain protection and counterfeit protection as outlined in the BIM

IDIQ PWS.

d) Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of Cybersecurity SCRM (C-SCRM)

5.2.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Capability and Operations Plan

The Offeror must fully respond to how all services documented within Section 4 of the BIM IDIQ PWS can and will be provided. Each capability not included in the Offerors response will negatively impact the rating. The Government will evaluate this subfactor based on the overall acceptability of the plan.

Offeror’s capability statement will be evaluated in terms of alignment with the following criteria:

• Submit a relevant Capability Statement

• Submit an Operational Plan o The Operations plan must demonstrate, at a minimum, that the Offeror can sufficiently handle the breadth and scale of delivery tasks across multiple locations, with minimal risk to the Government.

o The plan shall address, at a minimum, the process for managing hardware deliveries both CONUS and OCONUS and to all applicable locations, addressing performance of a minimum of four (4) locations concurrently:

Outline proposed national management structure, to include the positions necessary to perform BIM IDIQ requirements at applicable bases for the set-aside proposed.

Identify the role/responsibilities of each management position.

The Government will evaluate this subfactor as either Acceptable or Unacceptable, when the Government determines that the Offeror can sufficiently handle the breadth and scale of transformational tasks and anticipated scope of work, across multiple locations, with minimal risk to the Government. Should the Evaluator find any information, specified above, was not provided in the Offerors response the Subfactor and subsequently the entirety of Factor 1 will be deemed Unacceptable.

5.3. Volume 3

5.3.1. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Offeror was instructed to provide the following:

• A completed and signed Commercial and Government customers past performance questionnaire (Attachment X)

• Up to 5 past performance questionnaires; any experience unrelated directly to networking will not be considered.

Under no circumstances will the Government accept questionnaires sent directly by the Offeror.

Any questionnaires sent by the Offeror will not be evaluated. The evaluation team will ensure any questionnaires are legitimate and were not provided by the Offeror Offerors that did not provide past performance information within the above stated sources does not necessarily preclude them from continuance on the BIM IDIQ award but will be rated.

The Government will evaluate past performance in a variety of forms. The past performance questionnaires will be evaluated on a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Scale. The details of which are provided in the table below. In reviewing Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the questionnaires Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), System for Award Management (SAM), past performance questionnaires, and any other source deemed necessary to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

For the purposes of this Factors evaluation, “Relevant” is defined as work covering the BIM PWS scope. “Recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last five (5) calendar years

(between 1 January 2018 through 31 December 2022). The evaluation will determine that the Offerors Past Performance is both relevant and recent.

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Recent Present/Past Performance is within the specified calendar years.

Not Recent Present/Past Performance is not within the specified calendar years.

Should any item be evaluated as either not relevant or not recent, that Past Performance will not be counted. Should this reduce the number of Past Performance records to zero (0) that will negatively affect the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Performance Confidence

Assessment Ratings Gate 2 - Factor 3 - Past Performance

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

REVISION HISTORY