Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 DRAFT.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Number of Contract Awards

The Government intends to award one (1) MacDill AFB Civil Engineering Base Maintenance

Contract (BMC).

1.2 Basis for Contract Award

1.2.1. This is a best value Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at

ACQUISITION.GOV, https://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price.

Offerors must propose on all FFP CLINs.

1.2.2. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference.

Responsive proposals will be ranked by overall total evaluated price (TEP) and evaluated starting with the lowest priced proposal.

The evaluation team will begin evaluations of the two (2) lowest priced offeror’s technical, past performance and price volumes. If the lowest priced offeror receives a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”, the evaluation is complete, and award will go to the lowest price offeror without any further consideration of remaining proposals.

1.2.3 If the two (2) lowest priced offerors are rated “Technically Unacceptable,” or have an incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced price, or receives a Past Performance rating of less than “Substantial Confidence”, evaluation will continue in order of lowest price until an offeror is rated “Technically Acceptable” with a reasonable, complete, and balanced TEP and receives a

Past Performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”. If none of the offerors receives a rating of

“Substantial Confidence” the government reserves the right to award to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror with a performance rating of “Satisfactory Confidence”.

DRAFT

http://www.acquisition.gov/

Exchanges with offerors may occur in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions; therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined it's in the government’s best interest.

If discussions are held, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror's

Technical and Past Performance proposals have been evaluated as acceptable with a fair, reasonable, and balanced price at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the

FPR must be fully explained and substantiated, and are subject to evaluation, which may render the Offeror's proposal unacceptable, or priced unreasonably, and/or unbalanced, causing the offeror to be ineligible for award.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will assess the Offeror's proposal to ensure it meets the solicitation requirements and demonstrates the Offeror understands and can meet the requirements of the

PWS. The Government will assess the Offeror's methodology to meet threshold requirements of the PWS as described in the technical subfactors. Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated against the below criteria.

2.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor I: Price

Factor II:Technical

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Approach

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

Subfactor 3: Program Management and Staffing Approach

Subfactor 4: Performance Management/Quality Control Approach

Factor III: Past Performance

Factor IV: Other Contracting Considerations

Relative order of importance: Past Performance is significantly more important than price and all factors when combined. The technical subfactors will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable and will not be included in the tradeoff process.

2.1.1 FACTOR 1- PRICE

The Government will initially rank all proposals by the total proposed prices of all Firm-Fixed-

Price (FFP) CLINs for the base period, all option periods, and a six-month extension under FAR

52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The 6-month extension price will be calculated by prorating the price for the final option year to a six-month value. The total of the base period, all option periods and the six-month extension will be the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Time and Material

(T&M) CLINs will not be evaluated. The offerors prices will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance as defined in the following paragraphs.

Description Rating

2.1.1.1 Completeness: A proposal is complete when all pricing data required in the Price

Proposal Workbook is included and requirements under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the

RFP is provided in the format prescribed therein.

2.1.1.2 Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed shall correspond to the requirements of the PWS and Appendixes. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR

15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data IAW FAR 15.403 or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

2.1.1.3 Balanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The

Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price.

Per FAR 52.215-1(f) (8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.1.2 FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL

The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required, that it clearly demonstrates it has technical experience in the essential parts of the PWS, and that it has an adequate management plan, technical approach, and resources to fully meet the requirement. The Technical evaluation will utilize the four (4) technical subfactors listed below. Each technical subfactor will receive a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the criteria listed below. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a rating of “Unacceptable” for a subfactor and the overall proposal. Only those proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable,” either initially or after discussions, will be considered for award.

Table 1, Technical Ratings

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.2.1 Subfactor 1: Mobilization Approach

This subfactor will determine whether the offeror provided an acceptable plan to integrate with the existing service provider during the 60 days mobilization period to accomplish all Human

Resource (HR) actions, mobilize required equipment, vehicle and supplies and ensure a trained and qualified workforce is equipped and available on the first day of full contract performance.

The evaluation will address the Offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the

“Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Approach

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

3.3.1.1. The Offeror shall provide a

mobilization plan and supporting rationale to accomplish the following key tasks during the

60 days mobilization period. At a minimum, the plan should describe the following events:

2.1.2.1.1 The Offeror provided a mobilization

plan and supporting rationale demonstrate a comprehensive approach to accomplish the following key tasks during the 60 days mobilization period. This standard is met when the Offeror's proposal meets all of the following:

a) Identify personnel that require security clearances and the level of security clearance required to perform job requirements.

Proposal should include the quantity of security clearances and job description or job titles that require clearances in accordance with each section of the PWS.

a) The Offeror has identified personnel that require security clearances and the level of security clearance required to perform job requirements. Proposal should include the quantity of security clearances and job description or job titles that require clearances in accordance with each section of the PWS.

b) Identify a process to ensure employees or subcontract employees meet required certifications listed in PWS sections 2.9., 3.18., 4.1.24., 4.2.17., 5.7., 7.1.3., 7.1.4., 7.5.9., Position Qualifications. Provide a continuous training plan to identify and schedule all required training to ensure all required training, licensing and certification requirements are complete by the contract performance start date.

b) The process ensures employees or subcontract employees meet required certifications listed in PWS sections 2.9., 3.18., 4.1.24., 4.2.17., 5.7., 7.1.3., 7.1.4., 7.5.9., .

Provides a continuous training plan to identify and schedule all required training to ensure all required training, licensing and certification requirements are complete by the contract performance start date.

c) A list of equipment and vehicles that the offeror will furnish above the Government

c) The Offeror provided an acceptable list of equipment and vehicles that the offeror will

Provided Equipment list. If equipment and vehicles are not contractor owned, explain how vehicles will be provided. Identify the equipment/vehicles by quantity, type, and, intended purpose by work section to ensure all necessary equipment and vehicles are available for use on the first day of full contract performance.

furnish above the Government Provided

Equipment list. If equipment and vehicles are not contractor owned, offeror explained how vehicles will be provided. Offeror identified the equipment/vehicles by quantity, type, and, intended purpose by work section to ensure all necessary equipment and vehicles are available for use on the first day of full contract performance.

d) The offeror shall provide a statement of compliance acknowledging they shall be responsible to acquire Offeror-provided supplies and materials to ensure all necessary supplies and materials are available for use for the first 90 days of full contract performance.

d) The Offeror has provided a statement of compliance acknowledging they shall be responsible to acquire Offeror-provided supplies and materials to ensure all necessary supplies and materials are available for use for the first 90 days of full contract performance.

e) A realistic schedule to include graph/chart with sound supporting rationale, with timelines to fully address start and completion of each key scheduled event. At a minimum the offeror shall address interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and security clearances and start work dates, to include dates when equipment/vehicles, supplies and material will be on site.

e) The Offeror provided a realistic schedule to include graph/chart with sound supporting rationale, with timelines to fully address start and completion of each key scheduled event.

At a minimum the offeror addressed interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and security clearances and start work dates, to include dates when equipment/vehicles, supplies and material will be on site.

2.1.2.2 Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror's proposed technical approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in FAR Clause 52.212-1 and Addendums. To be acceptable, the Offeror's proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that its approach will meet the requirement for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

The evaluation will address the Offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the

“Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

3.3.2.1. Technical Approach: The approach

shall explain how the offeror intends to identify and schedule the required work to be performed and employ properly trained specialists to accomplish all requirements within the provided service performance standards. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall address:

2.1.2.2.1 Technical Approach: The approach

explained how the offeror intends to identify and schedule the required work to be performed and employ properly trained specialists to accomplish all requirements within the provided service performance standards. This standard is met when the Offeror's proposal meets all the following:

a) Accomplishing PWS requirements in 1) All

Services, 2) Installation Management e.g. Civil

Engineering Computer IT Management; Real

Property; and Environmental requirements, 3)

Operation and Maintenance e.g. Operations

Management; Operations; Heavy Repair;

Infrastructure Systems; Facility Systems;

Requirements and Optimization; and

Transportation and Utilities Activity

Management Plans (AMPs), 4) Installation

Engineering e.g. Engineering Management;

Portfolio Optimization; and Project

Management and 5) Emergency Management e.g. Readiness and Emergency Management while maintaining the established standards.

a) The approach explains how the Offeror will accomplish PWS requirements in 1) All Services,

2) Installation Management e.g. Civil

Engineering Computer IT Management; Real

Property; and Environmental requirements, 3)

Operation and Maintenance e.g. Operations

Management; Operations; Heavy Repair;

Infrastructure Systems; Facility Systems;

Requirements and Optimization; and

Transportation and Utilities Activity

Management Plans (AMPs), 4) Installation

Engineering e.g. Engineering Management;

Portfolio Optimization; and Project Management and 5) Emergency Management e.g. Readiness and Emergency Management while maintaining the established standards.

b) An approach to quickly and successfully adapt to new and/or changing in scope work requirements and workload (short (<3 months) and long (>3 months) term surges, contract reductions, and/or performing crisis/critical essential services) while continuing to meet contract performance standards.

b) The approach demonstrates the Offeror's ability to quickly and successfully adapt to new or changing in scope work requirements and workload (short (<3 months) and long (>3 months) term surges, contract reductions, and performing crisis/critical essential services) while continuing to meet contract performance standards.

c) Strategy to manage, maintain, and use any required Government Information Technology

(IT) or workload management systems (e.g., Air Force Legacy Systems identified throughout the PWS and Next Generation

(NexGen) Systems) by trained specialists.

Discuss Contractor-provided Material

Management System and integration of government team.

c) The strategy describes how the Offeror will manage, maintain, and use any required

Government Information Technology (IT) or workload management systems (e.g., Air Force

Legacy Systems identified throughout the PWS and Next Generation (NexGen) Systems) by trained specialists.

d) A plan that outlines an internal process to ensure compliance with installation, state and federal environmental, safety, and security standards identified in the PWS, Appendix S.

The strategy shall also address obtaining and maintaining required permits and licenses.

d) The plan outlines an internal process to ensure compliance with installation, state and federal environmental, safety, and security standards identified in the PWS, Appendix S. The strategy also addresses obtaining and maintaining required permits and licenses.

2.1.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management and Staffing Approach

This subfactor assesses the Offeror's proposed organization structure and staffing plan. The evaluation will address the Offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 3: Program Management and Staffing Approach

3.3.3.1 Program Management and Staffing

Approach. The Offeror shall provide an approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of workforce size, roles, and qualifications required to meet PWS requirements while complying with Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations and mandates. Provides Offeror's proposed staffing by shift, skill classification and work unit for the basic contract period and all option periods.

The proposal shall demonstrate an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. It must address lines of authority, details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function, and numbers.

The proposal shall provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure. The

Offeror shall:

2.1.2.3.1 Program Management and

Staffing Approach. The Offeror provided an approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of workforce size, roles, and qualifications required to meet PWS requirements while complying with Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations and mandates. Provided Offeror's proposed staffing by shift, skill classification and work unit for the basic contract period and all option periods. The proposal demonstrated an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. It addressed lines of authority, details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function, and numbers.

The proposal provided rationale used to develop the organizational structure. This standard is met when the Offeror's proposal meets all of the following:

a) Provide descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop) and Organizational Chart. Provide

a) The Offeror provided detailed descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop) and Organizational chart that ensures productive man-year calculations broken down by productive work hours (“on equipment” direct support) and non-productive work hours

(i.e., breaks, training, personal hygiene, vacation, etc.). Provide detailed rationale used to project straight time versus internally directed overtime, to include projections for each performance period, including any manpower adjustments. Provide descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop).

organizational staffing is sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirement. The offer includes productive man-year calculations broken down by productive work hours and non-productive work hours (i.e., breaks, training, personal hygiene, vacation, etc.). The Offeror detailed the rationale used to project straight time versus internally directed overtime, to include projections for each performance period, including any manpower adjustments. The Offeror provide descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop).

b) Provide a completed Manpower Matrix for the base period that adequately supports projected workload/PWS requirements.

b) The Offeror provided a completed

Manpower Matrix for the base period and each option period that adequately supports projected workload/PWS requirements.

c) Provide a rationale to support the proposed staffing, to include productive hour calculations

c) The Offeror provided complete rationale, to include productive hour calculations, which supported and corresponded with proposed staffing

d) Identify and provide a strategy that addresses coverage of “Critical One-Deep” and “Key” positions with trained, qualified and/or certified personnel. Key positions shall have dedicated personnel, onsite at MacDill AFB during normal duty hours and/or available for after hour responses as required by the PWS. The list of Key Positions includes the job titles identified in PWS sections.

d) The strategy addresses coverage of

“Critical One-Deep” and “Key” positions with trained, qualified and/or certified personnel.

Key positions have dedicated personnel, onsite at MacDill AFB during normal duty hours and/or available for after hour responses as required by the PWS sections.

e) Provide a strategy to recruit, develop, train, and retain personnel as needed throughout the life of the contract.

e) The proposal provided a strategy for recruiting, developing, training, and retaining personnel throughout the life of the contract.

f) Provide a complete Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS) for each functional area for the base period of performance that is sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirements in terms of quantity of personnel assigned and time allotted to each functional area.

f) The proposed Work Breakdown Structure

(WBS). Shall be for each functional area for the base period of performance to ensure hours are sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirements in terms of quantity of personnel assigned and time allotted to each functional area.

g) Provide a description (if applicable) of

Contractor Team Arrangements (partnership, joint venture, or subcontractor(s)) that addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the parties.

Include a cross-reference matrix indicating which PWS areas particular entities are to perform.

g) The Offeror provided a thorough description (if applicable) of Contractor Team

Arrangements (partnership, joint venture, or subcontractor(s)), satisfactorily addressing organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the entities. The cross-reference matrix clearly indicates which PWS areas particular entities are to perform.

h) Provide the following certification statement acknowledging all personnel will be trained, qualified and/or certified in accordance with the

PWS (including attachments):

“All Contractor personnel to be provided for the performance of services will meet all requirements and will be trained, qualified, and/or certified in accordance with the PWS.”

h) The Offeror provided the following certification statement acknowledging all personnel will be trained, qualified and/or certified in accordance with the PWS

(including attachments):

“All Contractor personnel to be provided for the performance of services will meet all requirements and will be trained, qualified, and/or certified in accordance with the PWS.”

2.1.2.4 Subfactor 4: Performance Management/Quality Control Approach

This subfactor assesses the Offeror's proposed approach to performance management and quality control. The evaluation will address the Offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the

“Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 4: Performance Management/Quality Management System Approach

3.3.4.1. PM/QMS Approach. The Offeror

shall provide a strategy that demonstrates the

Offeror's capability for performance management/quality control to ensure quality work performance/compliance with all applicable standards, guidelines, and publications required by the PWS without introducing unacceptable risk to the program or mission. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall address the following essential components:

2.1.2.4.1 PM/QC Approach. The Offeror

provided a strategy that demonstrates the

Offeror's capability for performance management/quality control that ensures quality work performance/compliance with all applicable standards, guidelines, and publications required by the PWS without introducing unacceptable risk to the program or mission. This standard is met when the

Offeror's proposal meets all of the following essential components:

a) Internal Quality Management System

(QMS): Provide a proactive QMS that does not rely on Government surveillance. The

QMS shall outline how the offeror will execute the following quality functions:

a) Detects quality problems and defects

b) Identifies root causes for quality related problems and defects

c) Facilitates correction of root causes related to detected problems and defects

d) Ensures quality related problems and defects do not recur.

a) Internal Quality Management System

(QMS): Provided a strategy demonstrating a proactive QMS that does not rely on

Government surveillance. The QMS outlined how the offeror will execute the following quality functions:

a) Detects quality problems and defects

b) Identifies root causes for quality related problems and defects

c) Facilitates correction of root causes related to detected problems and defects

d) Ensures quality related problems and defects do not recur.

b) Depict a quality management organization, including lines of authority that evaluates compliance, documents deficiencies, monitors corrective actions, ensures timely problem resolution, and addresses how problem recurrence will be prevented.

b) The quality management organization shows lines of authority and how the organization evaluates compliance, documents deficiencies, monitors corrective actions, ensures timely problem resolution, and addresses how problem recurrence will be prevented.

c) Provide a performance management approach that ensures effective Quality

Management and customer relations through efficient processes, performance measurement, analysis, and data management.

c) Performance management approach ensures effective Quality Management and customer relations through efficient processes, performance measurement, analysis, and data management.

2.1.3 FACTOR 3 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation will assess how well the offeror performed prior contracts that are recent and relevant to the services required by this solicitation. Past Performance will be assigned a Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating IAW Table 3 below.

Table 3- Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

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.

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 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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Procedures in Evaluating Past Performance

The Offeror's past performance efforts will be assessed in three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality. Based on those assessments, an overall PCA rating will be given. The past performance evaluation will consider past performance information which includes prime efforts performed by proposed major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners (i.e., 20% or more of the proposed workforce) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's past performance proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

Recency Assessment

“Recent” is defined as current performance or performance that has occurred within three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. To be considered "recent" the Offeror must have at least one (1) year of documented performance history within the recency window and only performance occurring inside of the three-year window will be considered. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

Relevancy Assessment

“Relevancy” is defined as recent efforts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity this solicitation requires. For this evaluation, a relevant contract is further defined as a

Base Maintenance Contract (BMC) or similar Civil Engineering (CE) service performed by the offeror or major subcontractor, subsidiary, and/or teaming partners.

The Government will evaluate recent performance information to determine how closely the services relate to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. In determining relevancy, consideration is given to the effort, or portion of the effort, proposed by the offeror and/or proposed major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria in Table 4 will not be evaluated for performance quality.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Relevancy will be evaluated IAW relevancy matrix located in attachment 36.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevance.

Table 4 – Relevancy Ratings

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.

Performance Quality Assessment

The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element/category or any unfavorable comment received from sources from within or from without a formal rating system.

The Government will consider assessment reports meeting the definition for recency to determine the performance assessment rating. Three (3) or more ratings of less than “Satisfactory” in the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or overall ratings of less than

“Satisfactory” from other sources such as, Past Performance Questionnaires from, or interviews with, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or the Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) may result in a performance quality assessment rating of “Unacceptable.” The

Government will follow the procedures in FAR 15.306 regarding an Offeror’s opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.