Attachment 19 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award_Rev 03MAR2021 - DRAFT.pdf

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 1 of 12 Rev. 2/5/2021

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiations, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix B, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

This competitive acquisition will utilize a Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This acquisition will be conducted in a phased approach; proposal completeness is a pre-requisite for Phase I evaluation. Phase I will consist solely on the assessment of the offeror’s Experience executing design-build projects. The offerors selected from Phase I will then continue to Phase II. In Phase II the offerors will be evaluated for Technical acceptability and Past Performance. Only Technically acceptable offerors in Phase II will then be evaluated for Past Performance.

Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and technically acceptable offerors evaluated in Phase II. Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical, in accordance with FAR 15.304(d). This may result in an award to a technically acceptable offeror with a higher past performance rating, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance outweighs technical acceptability. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. A single RFP will be issued with the anticipation of awarding a Multiple Award IDIQ contract to approximately twelve (12) contractors representing the best value to the Government by meeting or exceeding the terms and conditions of the RFP. The exact number of awards will be determined by the Source Selection Team during the evaluation of proposals and will be based primarily on the number, and capabilities of the most qualified firms.

Once best value offerors are determined, two separate pools of awardees will be created from the total number of contract awards in descending order starting with the highest rated offeror from those representing the best value; one active pool of approximately seven (7) offerors and one inactive pool of approximately five (5) of the remaining offerors. The future requirements will be competed among the

DRAFT

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 2 of 12 pool of awardees based on the work defined in individual task orders. Only contractors in the active pool will be eligible for competition of task order requirements issued under the MACC program. Awardees in the inactive pool may be eligible to be placed in the active pool in accordance with the procedures established for On-Ramping and Off-Ramping in Section H.

A contract will be awarded to offerors deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, and determined eligible by the Small Business Administration in accordance with FAR 19.7, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government.

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

1.3. Communication and Exchanges. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. At any stage of the evaluation, the Government may, at its discretion, engage in exchanges with an offeror about their proposal and may allow the offeror to revise their proposal. Entering into exchanges does not obligate the Government to allow proposal revisions.

1.4. Discussions and Proposal Revisions. The Government intends to award without discussions;

therefore, offerors should submit proposals that represent their best efforts. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. In the event discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c).

Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revisions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider the “correction potential” of any deficiencies. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable without a major revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION PROCESS

2. Proposal Evaluation. The Government will conduct a review of all proposals received to ensure they are complete and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and proposal preparations. The Contracting Officer may conduct clarifications to address the completeness of any volume and required

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 3 of 12 deliverables. However, the offeror is responsible to verify the proposal and supporting documentation provided meets the requirements of the solicitation. Failure to meet the requirement may render the proposal ineligible for Phase I or Phase II evaluation. At the Government’s discretion, aspects of the proposal identified as strengths will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

2.1. Evaluation Process. The evaluation process shall be conducted in two (2) phases, using the following procedures and factors:

Proposal Completeness. The Government will evaluate all proposals for completeness. Proposal completeness is a pre-requisite for proposals to be evaluated in Phase I and Phase II. The offeror shall submit a complete proposal in accordance with the Instructions and requirements stated in Section L and M. To determine completeness, all proposals will be evaluated using the Proposal Completion Checklist (Attachment 12). It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation. The Contracting Officer may conduct clarifications to address the completeness of proposals submitted. Incomplete proposals will then be eliminated and excluded for evaluation at Phase I and Phase II in the absence of discussions.

Phase I Evaluation.

Proposals that met the completeness pre-requisite will then be evaluated for Factor 1 (Executive Experience) on Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If a proposal is rated Unacceptable it will be ineligible for Phase II evaluation in the absence of discussions and eliminated from competition.

Phase II Evaluation.

All proposals rated Acceptable in Phase I will then be evaluated for Factor 2 (Technical). All offerors will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Only offerors that are technically acceptable will then be evaluated for Factor 3 (Past Performance), and assigned an “Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment” rating.

2.2. Award and Tradeoff Considerations. The Source Selection Team will evaluate the proposals to determine if it is in the Government’s best interest to consider a past performance technical tradeoff. The Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the and the Past Performance Confidence Rating to determine which offerors meet the Government requirements of executive experience, technical acceptability, and provide the greatest confidence of past performance, to reach a best value determination.

Relative Importance of Qualitative Rate Factors - Factor 3 (Past Performance) is significantly more importance than Factor 2 (Technical) in accordance with FAR 15.304(d).

The best value determination may result in the award of approximately seven (7) IDIQ contracts to the most qualified offerors to establish the active pool, and approximately five (5) IDIQ contracts to establish the inactive pool. The future requirements will only be competed among the active pool of awardees.

Contractors in the inactive pool may be on-ramped in accordance with the procedures in Section H to be eligible for future requirements.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 4 of 12

3. Evaluation Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using the following factors.

3.1. Factor 1 – Executive Experience [Phase I].

The offeror shall address in detail their executive experience and capability for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each aspect of the executive experience factor. Specific required experience attributes must be supported by narrative; inferences will not be made by the Agency.

Relevancy. For purpose of this evaluation, relevancy of projects is defined as Design-Build (DB) projects completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance on this solicitation) of similar scope and complexity of those expected to be awarded on this program. In lieu of a complete project, the offeror may submit projects that are ongoing as long as (a) the project is at least 80% complete by this solicitation’s issuance date, and (b) the contractor can validate completion with a government approved progress report. For commercial contracts, an equivalent customer validation of progress completion report may be used in lieu of a government approved progress report. The projects referenced shall have dollar values ranging from $750K and up to $10.0M, and include multi-discipline projects to include multiple divisions (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil Work), multiple trades, and or sub-contractors. The project referenced shall demonstrate the contractor’s experience in new construction work, demolition, and renovation/repair of existing facilities.

Projects. A project is defined as a complete design-build effort performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather, offeror’s shall submit as a project the work performed under a single task order.

3.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects.

The government will evaluate the offeror’s construction experience on relevant projects based on the information shown below.

a. The offeror shall submit six (6) relevant DB projects that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects of various size, scope, and complexity (please refer to the Relevancy definition above) according to the following breakdown requirements.

i. Offeror shall submit four (4) projects valued at least $750K and not to exceed $3.0M;

1. at minimum one project with two (2) or more divisions and two (2) or more trades,

2. at minimum one project with three (3) or more divisions and three (3) or more trades.

ii. Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued at least $3.0M and not to exceed $10.0M;

1. one project with two (2) or more divisions and two (2) or more trades,

2. one project with three (3) or more divisions and three (3) or more trades.

iii. Offerors shall submit at least three (3) of the projects that:

1. have concurrent period of performance to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent DB projects, and

2. demonstrate collaboration of the prime and any teaming partners included in response to this solicitation.

b. If Teaming Partner projects will be submitted for evaluation of experience, the Team Experience

Matrix should include a narrative describing a complete, coherent presentation of team abilities and role for task orders issued under this contract. The offeror shall submit a complete Team Experience

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 5 of 12

Matrix (Attachment 17) to illustrate the experience and relationship between the Prime, Designer of Record, and Teaming Partners or First-Tier Subcontractors (projected to perform at least 20% of the work on this contract) that will perform on this contract.

c. The design portion of the contract/project shall have been completed within the past five (5) years (from the date of issuance of this solicitation).

d. The offeror shall complete and submit each project using the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 13); the use of this sheet to submit project information is mandatory.

Projects submitted in other than the mandatory sheet will not be evaluated. Except as specifically requested, the government will not evaluate information submitted in addition to this form; total length for each project shall not exceed three (3) pages.

e. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), each firm shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this program. If the offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

The standard has been met when: The offeror provides six relevant DB projects completed within the last five (5) years using Attachment 13 that demonstrates experience on projects of various size, scope, and complexity (in accordance with the relevancy definition) and breakdown requirements; and includes a complete Team Matrix to illustrate the experience and relationship between the Prime, Designer of Record, and Teaming partners or First-Tier Contractors expected to perform at least 20% of the work on this contract. In the event an offeror is a JV, each firm shall provide at least one (1) relevant DB project to demonstrate experience; and provide a comprehensive narrative to demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this program.

3.2 Factor 2 – Technical [Phase II]

3.2.1 Management Effectiveness and Capabilities.

The offeror shall provide a plan that shows the offeror’s overall management plan/approach, to include a narrative to describe how often and on what projects these management approaches or plans have been previously executed. The Management Plan must ensure the requirements of the specifications are met at a minimum. The Government will assign strengths for aspects of an offeror’s proposal that have merit or exceed specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. At the Government’s discretion, aspects of the proposal identified as strengths will be incorporated into the resulting contract. This plan shall describe and include at minimum the following requirements:

(a) The offeror’s overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, development, monitoring, control of the design and construction process, and process to manage multiple concurrent relevant design-build projects (relevancy as described in Factor 1) during contract performance.

(b) The offeror’s site office organization with regard to levels of management, supervisory experience, personnel authority, and specific positions required to manage requirements from design through construction to completion; and policies and procedures for effective management of subcontractors.

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 6 of 12

(c) An organizational chart with names of assigned personnel and proposed subcontractors and their areas of responsibility for each portion, along with policies and procedures for selection and management of subcontractors. The chart shall also clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel.

(d) A narrative describing the roles of the design and construction teams in response to a task order;

processes handling of unforeseen site conditions and design errors for individual delivery orders.

(e) The offeror’s material purchasing system and capabilities, and policies and procedures for effective evaluation, selection, and competition requirements of subcontractors.

(f) The offeror’s ability to evaluate and select manpower, subcontractors, and equipment necessary to perform and manage multiple simultaneous MACC requirements.

(g) The offeror’s process for warranty/maintenance support, unforeseen site conditions, design errors, etc.

(h) A description of the offeror’s interface with home/site office, subcontractor operations, and construction teams; and Government project managers, contracting officials, inspectors, and users.

(i) A description of how the offeror intends to ensure how none of the key personnel (Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety and Health Officer) will hold more than one position in each project while managing multiple concurrent design-build projects.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient Management Plan that demonstrates an efficient management approach and thorough understanding of the minimum requirements above to include: management approach during contract performance; organizational structure and management levels; organizational chart, responsibilities and policies/procedures; narrative to describe team member roles in response to task orders; policies and procedures for competition of material/equipment/subcontractors and purchasing; efficiency in policies, process and experience for manpower/subcontractor selection to fulfill and manage multiple simultaneous projects/task orders; description of structural organization and communication within the organization and government personnel; and description of efficient staffing plan to ensure roles of key personnel are properly allocated to ensure successful execution of multiple simultaneous projects/tasks orders.

3.3 Executive Experience and Technical Ratings.

Factor 1 and 2 will be assessed and assigned an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” Rating (Table 1).

Offeror’s must meet the standards for each factor in order to be rated “Acceptable” for each respective factor. Only those proposals determined to be Technically “Acceptable” will be evaluated for Past Performance.

Table 1. Executive and Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets the specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 7 of 12

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contractor performance.

3.4 Volume III – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an Offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff Source Selection described in this section.

If the Offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the Contracting Officer in the Volume III Past Performance Summary Page.

3.4.1 Factor 3 – Past Performance [Phase II]

3.4.2 Evaluation Process. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance.

3.4.2.1 The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance for services the solicitation requires and the quality of performance on the past/present efforts. Offeror’s are cautioned that in conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's Past Performance Proposal Volume and information obtained from any and all sources, including sources outside the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or similar systems; Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of contractors who are part of the teaming partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal; information obtained from government inquiries including Past Performance Questionnaires; Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System; and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government’s evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding affiliated or operating divisions within the parent or predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects (see Section L; para 3.1, Tab C, sub-para. iv “Executed Teaming Agreements”), or joint ventures of the company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of the past efforts to the proposed efforts and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the parent or affiliated divisions will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition.

3.4.2.2 The Government will assess the Offeror’s past performance efforts for Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of Service. The Government will only evaluate Quality of Service on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant. Each proposal will receive an overall Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating based on the aggregate of all three elements (Recency, Relevancy, and Quality).

Offeror’s must provide past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy on all Federal contracts before State, local government or private contracts. Offeror’s shall provide adequate past performance information for completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 8 of 12 and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications.

The Offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports. The Offeror shall provide at least four (4) recent and relevant past performance reports from the Prime contractor. The Offeror shall complete Past Performance Information Form (Attachment 16) and provide the past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy of the reference.

3.4.2.2.1 Recency. Recency is defined as active or completed project completed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation to include at least six (6) months of documented performance during the five-year period. In lieu of completed projects within the five years, ongoing projects may be used as long as (a) they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation and (b) the contractor provides proof of percent completion with a government approved progress report. For commercial contracts, an equivalent customer validation of progress completion report may be used in lieu of a government approved progress report.

3.4.2.2.2 Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of the recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the efforts in this solicitation as well as the concurrency of the projects within the five year period.

In determining relevancy, the government will consider the Offeror’s role in the effort. The submitted combination of contracts/projects will be evaluated as an aggregate and result in one overall relevancy rating for each Offeror’s past performance proposal. The Government anticipates that this combination of contracts/projects will cover all of the Relevancy Primary Evaluation Areas identified below.

Relevancy Primary Evaluation Areas

1. Magnitude. Past performance shall demonstrate ability to execute Design-Build (DB) Construction requirements with cost between $750K and $10.0M.

2. Scope & Complexity. Past performance shall demonstrate ability to DB Construction projects similar to those relevant to this requirement to include projects for renovation, alteration and repair, and construction work elements including at least multiple disciplines, trades and divisions.

3. Concurrent Performance. Past performance shall demonstrate ability to execute and manage multiple concurrent DB Construction requirements meeting the recency standard.

Failure to address any of the Primary Evaluation Areas will result in lower Relevance rating.

Specific Content. Offeror’s are required to explain in the past performance report what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to requirements to be included in a MACC contract and as related to this solicitation. This may include a discussion of project complexity, technical diversity, contract/subcontract management, schedule, magnitude, description of work elements include for the renovation, alteration and repair, or construction project, and what other relevant projects were managed simultaneously.

The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 9 of 12 and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical factor and Cost/Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

Relevancy Assessment. The relevancy rating will be integrated in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy will be assigned a rating as defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevance Ratings

Very Relevant

Present/past performance efforts involved projects of the same scope, magnitude, and complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror demonstrates ability to manage at least five (5) concurrent multi-disciplined (at least three disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical) Design-Build projects valued greater than $750K (One or more valued at least $750K, one or more valued at least $1.0M, and one or more valued greater than $2.0M).

Relevant

Present/past performance efforts involved projects of similar scope, magnitude, and complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror demonstrates ability to manage at least four (4) concurrent multi-disciplined (at least two disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical) Design-Build projects valued greater than $750K (One or more valued at least $750K, one or more valued at least $1.0M, and one valued at least $1.5M).

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance efforts involved projects with some scope, magnitude, or complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror demonstrates ability to manage at least three (3) concurrent multi-disciplined (at least two disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical) Design-Build projects valued greater than $750K (One or more valued at least $750K, and one or more valued at least $1.0M).

Not Relevant

Present/past performance efforts involved projects with little or none of the scope, magnitude, or complexity this solicitation requires. Offeror does not manage multiple concurrent multi-discipline (at least two disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical) Design-Build projects valued greater than $750K (One or more valued less than $750K, and only one valued at least $1.0M).

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 10 of 12

3.4.2.2.3 Quality of Service. Quality refers to the overall satisfaction level of customers, job performance, and quality of completed and ongoing projects. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent relevant efforts/projects to evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets the project’s requirements. This includes aspects such as the Offeror’s Quality of Service, Schedule, Management, Cost Control, Regulatory Compliance, and Other factors affecting customer satisfaction.

The Offeror shall be responsible to submit a Quality and Satisfaction Survey (Attachment 15) for each recent and relevant reference provided; the Offeror shall only complete Sections 1 and 2 of the surveys and return to the Government. The government in turn will forward the Quality and Satisfaction Surveys to the point of contacts identified in the survey for their completion. The government will use the information obtained from these surveys to supplement the quality assessment of the Offeror. The client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the Offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission to indicate the commercial client has been notified of the forthcoming survey.

Quality Assessment.

The Government will perform an independent assessment of the Offeror’s quality or recent and relevant efforts regardless of its source. The Government is not bound or limited to the information obtained from past performance questionnaires, but may include information obtained from alternate sources to include CPARS or PPIRS, information provided by Government references to include contracting officers (or other Government employees) or other commercial/private sources with knowledge of the Offeror’s performance.

If any adverse information is discovered, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Adverse information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be provided the opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical factor and Cost/Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts. Rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The following ratings in Table 3 below will be used to define the quality of submitted past performance.

Table 3. Past Performance Quality Ratings

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 11 of 12

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available.

3.4.2.3 Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment.

The past performance information will then be used to assess and assign an “Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment” rating. The Source Selection Authority will conduct an independent, integrated assessment as a result of the relevancy and quality of service assessment. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

FA301621R0017 - Section M Page 12 of 12

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.

Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the “Neutral Confidence” rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. A “Satisfactory” or “Substantial Confidence” may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

(End of Evaluation Factors for Award)