Draft Sec M - Evaluation Criteria for Award 31 MAR 2025.pdf

FA300225R0008 (DRAFT)

31 March 2025

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Introduction. This section outlines the basis for evaluation of the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals submitted in response to the Base Operations Support Multiple Award Contract Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (BOS MAC IDIQ) solicitation. The evaluation criteria describe the scope of the evaluation to be performed on each proposal.

M.1.1 Basis for Award

M.1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements IAW Section L, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, responsibility, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M.1.3 This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition website, https://acquisition.gov. A contract will be awarded to all Offerors that meet the following qualifying conditions for the pool they proposed in:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements for the Pool(s) identified;

(2) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Substantial Confidence,”

(3) Proposed Technical Subfactors receive a rating of “Acceptable” for Subfactors 1, 2 and 3;

(4) Proposal provides documentation of an approved Accounting System;

(5) Is determined to be responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1;

(6) The contracting officer has no reason to believe the awardee would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing; and

(7) Is compliant with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 and Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) requirements.

M.1.4 The Government intends to make multiple BOS MAC IDIQ awards to qualifying Offerors using two competition pools: one (1) SB Pool and one (1) 8a Pool. All Offerors will be placed into competition pool(s) based on the Offeror's submission of the Section L, Attachment 7, Choice of Competition Pools form. An offeror will only be evaluated for and potentially awarded a contract for the pool in which a valid proposal was submitted for the respective box checked on Attachment L-7.

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 subfactors. Proposals addressing only a subset of the Air Force requirements, such as a specific location or PWS service area, may be deemed incomplete and ineligible for award.

M.1.5 While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the requirements and factors contained in this solicitation.

M.1.6 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to make award to each and all qualifying offerors for their respective Pool. Only one contract will be awarded per offeror for the BOS MAC IDIQ program.

M.1.7 Discussions: The Government intends to award contracts without discussions and without the opportunity for proposal revision; therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. Offerors shall submit sufficient information according to the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. the relevance of an Offeror’s Past Performance (PP) information and adverse PP information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond), or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarifications and communications conducted IAW FAR 15.306 (a) and (b) will not constitute discussions.

M.1.7.1 While it is the Government’s intention to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the Government decides to open discussions and establish a competitive range, the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors IAW FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request to receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors or IAW FAR 15.506, Post-award Debriefing of Offers.

M.1.7.1.1 If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision Requests (FPRR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions submitted to the Government in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M.1.8 Accounting System: A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror with a DFARS 252.242-7006 compliant accounting system determined by DCAA, the cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

Note: Determining the acceptability of an Offeror’s accounting system based on an Independent

CPA review is contingent on the Contracting Officer (in consultation with a government auditor or functional specialist) approval IAW DFARS 242.7502.

M.1.9 Pre-award Survey: A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1. In determining contractor responsibility, the CO may require the assistance of DCAA and/or DCMA to perform a Pre-award Survey.

M.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award

M.2.1 Selecting Offerors for award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against two factors as outlined in Table M.1 - Factors and Subfactors. To be eligible for award Offerors in their respective pools: Offerors must be determined responsible, receive a rating of “Acceptable” for all Technical Subfactors, and a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Substantial”.

Table M.1 - Factors and Subfactors

Factors and Subfactors

Criteria Description Competition Pools

Factor 1

Subfactor 1 (A/U)

Subfactor 2 (A/U)

Subfactor 3 (A/U)

Technical (Volume I)

Base Operations

Workforce Management

Performance Management

Pool 1 (SB) and Pool 2 (8a)

Factor 2 (Confidence Assessment)

Past Performance (Volume II) Pool 1 (SB) and Pool 2 (8a)

* Cost/Price will not be evaluated at the MAC level but will be evaluated at each individual Task Order level.

M.2.2 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors for each respective Pool:

Factor (1) Technical and Factor (2) Past Performance are of equal importance. Within Factor (1) Technical, Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance. The Government will assign each Subfactor in Factor (1) Technical a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described in Table M.2 below. The Government will evaluate Factor (2) Past Performance and assign a Confidence Assessment rating as described in Table M.7 below.

M.2.3 The evaluation of each factor and subfactors is intended to assess the offeror’s ability to effectively address specific elements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

Each factor and subfactor and their respective elements are structured to measure key areas critical to contract performance, ensuring compliance with technical standards and the Government’s expectations.

M.3 Evaluation of Proposals

M.3.1 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I: Offerors’ proposals shall clearly demonstrate comprehensive understanding of the requirements of this solicitation. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, of this solicitation.

There are 3 Subfactors under the Technical evaluation Factor: 1) Base Operations Approach, 2) Workforce Management and 3) Performance Management. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals as “Acceptable/ Unacceptable” at the subfactor level.

IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures (SSP) Table C-1, the Government will use the DoD SSP Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings as outlined below in Table M.2 to assess the Contractor’s proposal for technical acceptability. Each Subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will not search for data to solve problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. In assessing the acceptability of each Technical Subfactor, any deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Subpart 15.001, Contracting by Negotiation – Definitions, and Chapter 5 of the DoD SSP. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. An overall Factor-level rating will not be assigned. A finding of “Unacceptable” in any Subfactor will render the proposal Technically Unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

Table M.2: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1.1 Pool 1, Small Business Set-aside

M.3.1.1.1 Pool 1 Subfactor 1 - Base Operations - The standard is met when the proposed approach:

M.3.1.1.1.1 Element 1a) provides specific, comprehensive processes and methods that demonstrate the capability to deliver Operations and Maintenance services. This includes managing the condition of all component inventory management metrics for utility systems, specifically referencing the Utilities AMP (Activity Management Plan) managed by the Operations section, along with other sub-AMPs related to water, wastewater, storm water, and mechanical distribution systems. The Offeror is expected to gather data and provide information to support the development of these plans, ensuring effective asset management and communication between the government and other base management sections for utility systems in accordance with PWS Section 3.1.7.4.

M.3.1.1.1.2 Element 1b) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating a clear understanding and capability to deliver Installation Engineering services that includes, but not limited to; producing high-quality designs that minimize the likelihood of change orders due to errors, omissions, or insufficient detail, exhibiting established processes for design review and quality control, portfolio optimization, and demonstrating a commitment to meeting design deadlines and delivering designs promptly in accordance with local, state, and federal policies/regulations and PWS Section 3.1.8.

M.3.1.1.2 Pool 1 Subfactor 2 - Workforce Management - The standard is met when the proposed approach:

M.3.1.1.2.1 Element 2a) provides an acceptable comprehensive Staffing Plan identifying key management positions with a detailed workforce strategy to fully recruit, train, qualify, certify and retain personnel. The plan describes compensation plans, staffing incentives, cross-utilization, contingency plans and innovative solutions to maintain coverage for one-deep positions during unexpected absences, and allows for the flexibility needed to meet changing, unscheduled, urgent and surge BOS requirements.

M.3.1.1.2.2 Element 2b) demonstrates an acceptable organizational structure defined with an organizational chart(s), along with adequate rationale for the proposed structure that includes roles and responsibilities for each organizational element, e.g., divisions, branches, work centers, etc. Provide a chart that covers all 20 PWS service areas IAW PWS Section 3; and clearly indicates which of the 20 PWS services areas the prime contractor, their affiliate(s), joint venture(s), mentors, protégé, partners, subcontractor(s), etc. will be performing IAW FAR 9 Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements.

M.3.1.1.3 Pool 1 Subfactor 3 - Performance Management- The standard is met when the proposed Quality Management System (QMS) approach, IAW PWS Section 3.3 and ISO 9001:2015, Quality Management Systems – Requirements, demonstrates:

M.3.1.1.3.1 Element 3a) a comprehensive organizational structure for Quality Control showing clear lines of authorities and responsibilities;

M.3.1.1.3.2 Element 3b) an acceptable detailed method to identify discrepancies, assess risk, analyze root causes, devise, implement, track and close corrective actions and identifies and documents trends.

M.3.1.2 Pool 2, 8a Certified

M.3.1.2.1 Pool 2 Subfactor 1 - Base Operations - The standard is met when the proposed approach:

M.3.1.2.1.1 Element 1a) Provides a comprehensive plan and strategy to maintain and operate HVAC, chillers, and chiller plants to include a clear understanding to preventative maintenance, specifically addressing monitoring using Energy Management Control Systems and controls maintenance/operations for the afore mentioned systems IAW PWS Section 3.1.7.4.

M.3.1.2.1.2 Element 1b) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating the capability for providing Installation Engineering IAW PWS Section 3.1.8 for producing high-quality 100% ready for construction or 35% design/build (DB) packages to include evidence that the design packages did not result in after award change orders due to design errors, omissions, or insufficient design details in a timely manner.

M.3.1.2.1.3 Element 1c) Provides a comprehensive plan to manage/update/configure legacy systems/replacement systems and communication plan between offeror and government personnel.

M.3.1.2.2 Pool 2 Subfactor 2 - Workforce Management - The standard is met when the proposed approach:

M.3.1.2.2.1 Element 2a) provides an acceptable comprehensive Staffing Plan identifying key management positions with a detailed workforce strategy to fully recruit, train, qualify, certify and retain personnel. The plan describes compensation plans, staffing incentives, cross-utilization, contingency plans and innovative solutions to maintain coverage for one-deep positions during unexpected absences, and allows for the flexibility needed to meet changing, unscheduled, urgent and surge requirements

M.3.1.2.2.2 Element 2b) demonstrates an acceptable organizational structure defined with an organizational chart(s), along with adequate rationale for the proposed structure that includes roles and responsibilities for each organizational element, e.g., divisions, branches, work centers, etc. Provide a chart that covers all 20 PWS service areas IAW PWS Section 3; and clearly indicates which of the 20 PWS services areas the prime contractor, their affiliate(s), joint venture(s), mentors, protégé, partners, subcontractor(s), etc. will be performing IAW FAR 9 Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements.

M.3.1.2.3 Pool 2 Subfactor 3 - Performance Management- Performance Management- The standard is met when the proposed Quality Management System (QMS) approach, IAW PWS Section 3.3 and ISO 9001:2015, Quality Management Systems – Requirements, demonstrates:

M.3.1.2.3.1 Element 3a) a comprehensive organizational structure for Quality Control showing clear lines of authorities and responsibilities;

M.3.1.2.3.1 Element 3b) an acceptable detailed method to identify discrepancies, assess risk, analyze root causes, devise, implement, track and close corrective actions and identifies and documents trends.

M.3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II: Past performance (PP) will be evaluated as an indicator of an Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully, and therefore, a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform. A confidence assessment rating will be determined in aggregate based on the Government assessing an Offeror’s PP that is deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The PP evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record. In conducting the PP evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s PP proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA) or other databases;

interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) will be allowable for a Past Performance record that meets the 12-month of performance, however, no CPARS records are available. In the event a PPQ is received for a past performance record that has a CPARS record available for the same period; only the CPARS record will be reviewed and considered. If submitting multiple task orders from an IDIQ type contract, the Government will individually assess each task order under the same IDIQ.

M.3.2.1 The Government will consider PP information regarding the prime Offeror, their affiliate(s), joint ventures, mentors, protégé, partners, subcontractors, etc. that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.3.2.1.1 Special Considerations for Joint Venture Prime Offerors: As required by 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), the PP evaluation team will consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Although any protégé firm will not be required to individually meet the same evaluation criteria or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally, the partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the PP, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

M.3.2.1.2 Key Personnel: The PP evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s present/past performance and NOT on the key personnel of the Offeror.

M.3.2.2 The Offeror’s PP efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Performance. The Government will only consider Quality of Performance 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 the following elements: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Performance. Past Performance will be rated as “Substantial”, “Satisfactory”, “Neutral”, “Limited”, or “No” Confidence. The Government will only award a contract to Offerors who received an overall adjectival rating of “Substantial.”

M.3.2.2.1 Recency Definition: For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. A contract or task order will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the five (5) year recency window. If the ordering period on an IDIQ type contract has expired but the performance period on a Task Order is still ongoing or within the above dates, the performance of the Task Order will be considered within the recency parameters. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality of performance.

M.3.2.2.2 Relevancy Definition: For the PP evaluation to be an effective predictor of future success, the PP relevancy will be rated as Not Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Relevant or Very Relevant to the BOS MAC IDIQ requirement; therefore, “Relevancy” will be rated based on similarity in scope, magnitude and complexity of effort described in the solicitation and the Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas for each Pool. The scope, magnitude, and complexity will be compared against the Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas listed in Tables M.4 and M.5 respectively for each Pool, and not to the requirement as a whole. Relevancy will be assigned a rating IAW the DoD SSP and as outlined in Table M.3 below. Performance efforts that are determined “Not Relevant” will not be further evaluated. The Government views joint venture partners the same as a Prime Offeror. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract identified in Offeror’s PP proposal:

Table M.3 – 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.

*Note: At a minimum, the Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas outlined in Tables M.4 and M.5 for each respective pool must be addressed in the combination of all recent and relevant past performance submitted. Failure to meet all the Evaluation Areas may result in a lower rating.

M.3.2.2.2.1 Relevancy Criteria for Pool 1, SB Set-Aside: The Offeror shall provide a maximum of six (6) PP contracts. The Prime Offeror, their affiliate(s), joint ventures, mentors, protégé, and partners must provide at least three (3) of its own PP contracts out of the six (6) total to be eligible to receive an overall "Substantial" confidence assessment rating. Offerors will not receive an overall PP confidence assessment rating of “Substantial” confidence if they do not have recent and relevant coverage in all six (6) of the PWS evaluation Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas identified in Table M.4 below. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

At a minimum, the following Evaluation Areas outlined in Table M.4 below must be addressed in the combination of all recent and relevant past performance submitted. Failure to meet all the Evaluation Areas below may result in a lower Performance Confidence Assessment rating:

Table M.4 – Pool 1, SB Set-Aside Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas

PWS Section 3.1.6 Installation Management

PWS Section 3.1.7.4 - Operations and Maintenance: Utility Systems

PWS Section 3.1.8 - Installation Engineering

PWS Section 3.1.9 – Grounds Maintenance

PWS Section 3.1.10 – Emergency Management

PWS Section 3.1.14 – Supply & Logistics Material Management

M.3.2.2.2.1.1. Pool 1, Scope: Relevancy as it relates to scope will be determined based on the similarity of work performed under each PP effort to the scope of work required under each Basic Services Evaluation Focus Area further defined in the PWS. The scope will be compared against the PWS by the sections above, not to the requirement as a whole.

M.3.2.2.2.1.2 Pool 1, Magnitude of effort (dollar value): The Total Dollar Value of a single Task Order under an IDIQ type contract where PP is assessed at the Task Order level or any single award contract type:

• Very Relevant – DoD contract(s) greater than $47M performed in the capacity as the Prime;

• Relevant – DoD contract(s) greater than $38M and less than $47M;

• Somewhat Relevant – Any contract(s) greater than $6M and less than $38M; and

• Not Relevant – Any contract(s) less than $6M.

NOTE: The Government will evaluate all relevancy factors in aggregate. The following is an example of how relevancy will be evaluated in aggregate. If an Offeror submits a DoD $50M Task Order where they performed as the Subcontractor and not the Prime, the Magnitude of Effort would be assessed as relevant for magnitude of effort. However, the Government will also assess the Scope and Complexity of the contract against the Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas described in Table M.4. If the scope and complexity of the PP proposed is assessed as “Essentially the Same”, then Scope and Complexity would be assessed as very relevant. In aggregate the Offeror would receive an overall rating of “Very Relevant” for that contract even though the Magnitude of effort (dollar value) was only considered relevant.

M.3.2.2.2.1.3 Pool 1, Complexity: Relevancy regarding complexity may be based on, but not limited to, the similarity between a given PP effort and the tasks/function that will be performed to include degree of professional and managerial skill, type of facilities, and technical assets that can be expected to lead to efficient and economical contract performance. Consideration may be given when determining relevant PP regarding complexity that supports vital efforts in which experienced and skilled personnel with professional credentials are required for successful execution of the requirement.

M.3.2.2.2.2 Relevancy Criteria for Pool 2, 8a Set-Aside: The Offeror shall provide a maximum of six (6) PP contracts. The Prime Offeror, their affiliates(s), joint ventures, mentors, protégé, partners must provide at least three (3) of its own PP contracts out of the six (6) total to be eligible to receive an overall "Substantial" confidence assessment rating.

Offerors will not receive an overall PP confidence assessment rating of “Substantial” confidence if they do not have recent and relevant coverage in all six (6) of the PWS Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas identified in Table M.5 below. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

At a minimum, the following Evaluation Areas outlined in Table M.5 below must be addressed in the combination of all recent and relevant PP submitted. Failure to meet all the Evaluation Areas below may result in a lower Performance Confidence Assessment rating:

Table M.5 – Pool 2, 8a Certified Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas

PWS Section 3.1.7.4 – Operations & Maintenance: Utility Systems

PWS Section 3.1.9 – Grounds Maintenance

PWS Section 3.1.11 – Vertical Transportation Equipment (VTE)

PWS Section 3.1.14 – Supply & Logistics Material Management

PWS Section 3.1.15 - Transportation

PWS Section 3.1.20 – Custodial Services

M.3.2.2.2.2.1. Pool 2, Scope: Relevancy as it relates to scope will be determined based on the similarity of work performed under each PP effort to the scope of work required under each Basic Services Evaluation Focus Area further defined in the PWS. The scope will be compared against the PWS by the sections above, not to the requirement as a whole

M.3.2.2.2.2.2 Pool 2, Magnitude of effort (dollar value): The Total Dollar Value of a single Task Order under an IDIQ type contract where PP is assessed at the Task Order level or any single award contract type:

• Very Relevant – DoD contract(s) greater than $30M performed in the capacity as the Prime;

• Relevant – DoD contract(s) greater than $17M and less than $30M;

• Somewhat Relevant – Any contract(s) greater than $5M and less than $17M; and

• Not Relevant – Any contract(s) less than $5M.

NOTE: The Government will evaluate all relevancy factors in aggregate. The following is an example of how relevancy will be evaluated in aggregate. If an Offeror submits a DoD $32M Task Order where they performed as the Subcontractor and not the Prime, the Magnitude of Effort would be assessed as relevant. However, the Government will also assess the Scope and Complexity of the contract against the Basic Services Evaluation Focus Areas described in Table M.5. If the scope and complexity of the past PP proposed is assessed as “Essentially the Same”, then the scope and complexity would assess as very relevant. In the aggregate the Offeror would receive a rating of “Very Relevant” for that contract even though the Magnitude of effort (dollar value) was only considered relevant.

M.3.2.2.2.2.3 Pool 2, Complexity: Relevancy regarding complexity may be based on, but not limited to, the similarity between a given PP effort and the tasks/function that will be performed to include degree of professional and managerial skill, type of facilities, and technical assets that can be expected to lead to efficient and economical contract performance. Consideration may be given when determining relevant PP regarding complexity that supports vital efforts in which experienced and skilled personnel with professional credentials are required for successful execution of the requirement.

M.3.2.2.4 PERFORMANCE QUALITY: The Government will review and consider the quality of performance (how well the contractor performed on past/present contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. Performance quality may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

IAW FAR 15.306(a)(2), Offerors may be given the opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which they have not had a prior opportunity to respond. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. In the event a PPQ is received for a past performance record that has a CPARS record for the same period; the CPARS record will be reviewed and considered.

M.3.2.2.5 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE: The result of the Government’s analysis of the Offeror’s PP record will be a single overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating for the Past Performance Factor. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the single overall assessment, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s PP record, of the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation. The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are defined IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and listed in Table M.7 below.

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, nor unfavorably, on past performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant PP will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant PP record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort.

Table M.7 – 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.

M.3.2.2.5.1 Past performance information, including CPARS/PPIRS and PPQs are confidential and shall not be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Beyond initial PPQ requests, offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of PP information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence PP ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance confidence rating. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners are aware of this information and comply.

M4.0 RESPONSIBILITY/CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION – VOLUME III

The Offeror's Volume III – Contract Documentation will not be a standalone evaluation factor and will not be given a separate rating. However, a determination of responsibility will be made and an Offeror that is determined not responsible will not be eligible for final contract award.