Relevancy clarification.pdf

Relevancy Clarification

We have received concerns/questions on the Draft RFP regarding the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 (Attachment 11 to the Draft RFP). The government provides the following clarification for the past performance relevancy evaluation process.

It is the intention of the government to evaluate all past performance submittals in the aggregate. This clarification will be in the formal RFP release.

It is not necessary that every past performance contract s submitted receive a ”Very Relevant” rating in every relevancy criteria (Scope, Complexity, Magnitude) of the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix for the offeror to receive an overall Very Relevant rating. If a past performance contract submitted receives a “Very Relevant” in any one of the relevancy criteria the government will rate that contract as “Very Relevant” For that category. For example, if an offeror submits a past performance contract that is “Not Relevant” in terms of scope, but is “Very Relevant” in terms of magnitude, the contractor will receive a “Very Relevant” rating for that contract in the category of magnitude and a not relevant in the category of scope. If an offeror receives one “Very Relevant” rating in any of the relevancy criteria (Scope, Complexity, Magnitude) on any one contract submitted, when the government confirms the recency and performs the relevancy and quality assessments the contractor will receive a confidence rating. The confidence rating will consider all the information from the submitted contracts seeking to determine if the contractor demonstrated relevancy in all the relevancy categories across their submitted contracts. It is possible for an offeror to receive a confidence rating of “Substantial Confidence” without having submitted one contract that was rated Very Relevant in every relevancy criteria. The key is to submit contracts that demonstrate that the offeror has relevant experience in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude, across all of their submitted contracts.

A scenario using the relevancy criteria magnitude:

In this scenario the offeror demonstrated their ability to manage a single contract with an annual value over $10M and will be considered as very relevant when determining the confidence rating.

Annual Value FTE's Rating Contract 1 $3M 20 NR Contract 2 $2M 12 NR Contract 3 $11M 75 VR Contract 4 $4M 30 NR Contract 5 $1M 8 NR