Attachment J5-Contractor Performance Information.docx

Bureau for MANAGEMENT (M) office of Acquisition and Assistance Templates Series

Solicitation Template for Contractor Performance Information (Sections L and M)

February 2018

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO

OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS:

(XXX) CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION [See Section M.XXX.] [CO must insert subsection number here and in paragraph (d)(2).]

(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds __% [CO must insert a percentage if “major subcontractor” is not defined elsewhere in the solicitation.] of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following:

1. List in an annex to the technical proposal up to __ [CO to insert a reasonable number Note: for high-risk contracts and orders, as defined in Appendix II and described in Appendix V of this manual, offerors must provide at least three to five references of recently completed contracts or orders] of the most recent and relevant contracts* for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity __________________________________________________________ [CO must define relevancy based on input from the program office and add as necessary (e.g., contract types, type of work, scope of work, complexity/diversity of tasks, magnitude of effort; skills/ expertise required, location of work to be performed, required levels of technology; nature of the business area(s) involved, etc.) and how recently they were performed.]

2. For all contracts listed above that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description of the performance to include:

• Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks,

• Primary location(s) of work,

• Term of performance,

• Dollar value, and

• Contract type, i.e., fixed-price, cost reimbursement, etc.

[For any high-risk award, as defined in Appendix II of this guidance, CO must also request point of contact information for the CO, COR, or Project Manager of the offeror’s two largest, most recently awarded Federal contracts or orders. Please refer to Appendix V for more details.]

(USAID recommends that you alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide performance information concerning the listed contracts if and when USAID requests it.)

(b) If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (FAR 15.305(a)(2)).

(c) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation.

(d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001)*.

(1) This section (d) is not applicable to offers from small business concerns.

(2) As part of the evaluation of performance in Section M.XX [CO to provide section number] of this solicitation, USAID will evaluate the extent you used and promoted the use of small business concerns under current and prior contracts. The evaluation will assess the extent small business concerns participated in these contracts relative to the size/value of the contracts, the complexity and variety of the work small business concerns performed, and compliance with your SB subcontracting plan or other similar small business incentive programs set out in your contract(s).

(3) In order for USAID to fully and fairly evaluate performance in this area, all offerors who are not small business concerns must do the following:

[End of Section L provision]

*Required for all USAID solicitations other than personal services contracts, 100 percent small business set asides, and those for which a justification for other than full and open competition has been approved.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

(XXX) CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION _XX_

[CO must insert number of points, if using a point scoring system. See FAR 15.305(a)(2) for required elements and section 4.1.5 of this guidance on determining the relative weight for CPI. Note: Per ADS 302.3.6.3, the expected weight range for CPI is 20-30% of the total non-cost evaluation criteria. ] [See Section L.XXX.] [CO must insert subsection number here and in paragraph (a).]

(a) Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L. [XXX ] of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror’s performance.

(b) Adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond will be addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in the FAR 15.3.

(c) USAID will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

(d) The contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below [CO to insert number of points, if using a point scoring system. For adjectival or other rating systems, indicate the order of importance of the subcriteria below or how the weighting of the elements relate to each other. The optional “ degree of relevancy” under the last subcriteria “Other” may be given more weight than other subcriteria]:

(1) Quality, including overall performance to accomplish logistic planning, success in meeting quality objectives and consistency in meeting goals and targets. _XX_

(2) Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting (Note to COs: this element is not required for Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment contracts). _XX_

(3) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance). _XX_

(4) Management, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements, management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified. _XX_

(5) Regulatory Compliance, including compliance with all terms and conditions in the awards relating to applicable regulations and codes (financial, environmental, safety, and other reporting requirements). _XX_

Total Weight for Performance Evaluation XX_

(f) An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

When this occurs, an offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a "neutral" rating. [CO to identify the approach that will be used to evaluate offerors with no relevant CPI. See FAR 15.305(a)(2)].

For example, an offeror without relevant performance will be evaluated as follows: If this evaluation factor is worth a possible 20 points out of a total possible point value of 100 for the technical proposal, then this offeror’s technical proposal will have a maximum of 80 possible points. If it was assigned a total score of 70 points out of the 80 maximum possible points, its total technical score for evaluation against the other offerors would be 87.5 (i.e., 70/80). USAID understands that there may be minor arithmetic differences in percentage terms as a result; however, it considers these differences to be minor and that they will not impact any best-value decision made under this solicitation.

Prior to assigning a "neutral" past performance rating, the contracting officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an offeror's performance.

[End of Section M provision]