Attachment 9 - Past Performance Relevancy Baseline.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Solicitation: Full and Open CLS Sustainment services for the AEWS AN/FPS-117 Radar System
- Solicitation number
- FA821725RB004
About this file
Attachment 9 is a Past Performance Relevancy Baseline document that establishes evaluation criteria for contractor past performance across three key categories: Magnitude and Contract Type, Complexity Performance, and Similarity of Scope. The document defines specific thresholds for determining performance relevance, including:
Category 1 (Magnitude): Contracts valued at or above $15M are considered more relevant than those under $15M. Category 2 (Complexity): Higher relevance is assigned to performance at multiple geographical locations, involvement with PESA/AESA Radars and sub-systems, versus single-location or non-PESA/AESA radar work. Category 3 (Similarity of Scope): Relevance is determined by similarity to arctic location services, alignment with specific PWS sections 2.7 and 3.1, and performance periods of at least three years. These criteria will likely be used to evaluate potential contractors' past performance for the AN/FPS-117 Long Range Radar System sustainment services contract.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment 9 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline
Section L: Relevancy Baseline
| Section L4.3 – 4.3.3 and Table L.4 |
| Relevant |
| Not Relevant |
Category 1: Magnitude and Contract Type
| Total Task Order/Contract Value |
| equal to or greater than $15M |
| less than $15M |
Category 2: Complexity
| Performance |
| · Performance at multiple geographical locations concurrently. |
· Performance on PESA/AESA Radars and sub-systems
· Performance at only a single geographical location at any discreet period of time
· Performance on Non PESA/AESA Radar and sub-systems
Category 3: Similarity of the Scope
| Type of Service |
| · Similarity of products developed and service/support for remote arctic locations |
· Personnel with knowledge, skills and ability referenced in PWS sections 2.7 and 3.1
· Experience outside of providing direct development, service or support in arctic locations
· Experience not relevant to PWS sections 2.7 and 3.1
| Performance Period |
| · A minimum of three-years of performance is complete. |
| · Less than three-years or no performance is complete |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .