Attachment_3_Performance_Information_Form.pdf

FA9301-16-R-0010

Attachment 3

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

A. Offeror Information:

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

B. Offeror Information:

Name (Company/Division):

CAGE Code: DUNS Number: If

Other than the Prime Offeror, Identify Prime Offeror:

C. Program Title:

C. Contract Specifics:

Contracting Agency or Customer:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Period of Performance (include exercised options):

Contract Dollar Value:

Has the contract been entered into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)? Yes or No

D. Brief Description of Contract as Prime or Subcontractor

Indicate the type of services provided, i.e. Full Food Service Dining Facility, and highlight portions considered most relevant to Edwards Air Force Full Food Service Dining Facility acquisition.

E. Primary Customer Points of Contact:

For Government contracts, provide the following information for the Program Manager and Contracting Officer. For commercial contracts, provide equivalent to aforementioned Government positions. Ensure the individuals are currently available to provide past performance information if requested by the Government.

Name:

Office:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

Email Address:

(End Addendum)

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) PRICE

Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of past performance being approximately equal to price. However, in accordance with the Randolph – Sheppard Act

- 34 CFR § 395.33 the State of California's Department of Rehabilitation will be allowed to propose as the State Licensing Authority (SLA) for the Randolph - Sheppard Act. The solicitation is a competitive HUBZone set-aside, but also permits the SLA, which may not be considered a Small Business concern, to participate in the procurement. The priority embodied in the Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-SA) takes precedence over small business preferences.

Therefore, if the SLA’s proposal is determined to be in the competitive range and remains so after discussions, in accordance with the R-SA, the Government will award the contract to the SLA. To be in the competitive range a proposal must be technically acceptable and have satisfactory confidence in performance. A neutral past performance rating for a HubZone offeror will suffice for a competitive range determination. The SLA will be required to provide a subcontracting plan to afford small business an opportunity to perform aspects of the requirement. Should the SLA not be eligible for award the remaining offerors will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation - Commercial Items”. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing

Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. Copies of the Pricing Schedule will be necessary in order to submit a proposal for each Option Year.

B. 1. Assessment Methodology. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and

(2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Full Food Service that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in MP5315.3, Table 3.

MP 5315.3 PARAGRAPH 5.5.2.2, TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

B.2. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent or current. Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Recent/current contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation). Past performance, information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated.

B.3. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all current or recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the dining facility services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the DFAC requirement. The relevancy considerations in descending order of importance are as follows:

B.3.1. Scope. Scope is reflected in the tasks/functions referenced throughout the DFAC Performance Work Statement (i.e., dining facility management, cooking and food preparation, serving and replenishing food, etc.)

B.3.2. Magnitude/Complexity. Magnitude is reflected in the size/scale of the dining facility services provided, to include the number of customers and meals served.

B.3.3. Contract Type. Category of contract type (such as Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Time & Materials/Labor Hour, etc.).

B.3.4. Contract Environment. Location of contract performance (such as an Air Force installation, a DOD or NASA installation, or another Government or industry site).

B.4. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are considered to be of the type and similar in scope; magnitude/complexity; contract type, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing current or recent, and relevant contracts:

Table 1 – Relevancy Definitions

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Scope (Reference Performance based Work Statement

(PWS))

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where performance is essentially the same as or greater than tasks as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where the performance involved tasks are very similar to those outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where performance involved some similar tasks outlined in the PWS

Magnitude / Complexity

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with a workload same as or greater than the historical workload as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with workload similar to the historical workload as outlined in the

PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with a workload somewhat less than historical workloads as outlined in the PWS

Contract Type Performance under a DoD Firm-Fixed Price Contract

Performance under a Fixed Price Contract

Any other contract type other than Fixed Price

Contract Environment Contract performance on a military installation

Contract performance at a government facility

Contract performance at any U.S. location.

B.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent or current. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, and CPARS information. It may include interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements, the assessment will consider the Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rates when compared to the industry averages as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (according to the applicable contract NAICS code) with regard to the safety performance of previous contracts. The assessment will consider information related to Government Furnished Property already in the offeror’s possession (on other contract efforts) in terms of the quality of managing the Government Property. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. “Adverse” 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. 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 have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

C. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

D. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government, and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers unless the procedures set forth in paragraph H below establish that award to the State Licensing Agency (SLA) is appropriate.

E. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Award shall be made to that offeror unless the procedures set forth in paragraph H below establish that award to the State Licensing Agency (SLA) is appropriate.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. 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.

G. The government intends to award a contract after discussions with respective offerors.

H. Randolph-Sheppard Act - This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of past performance being approximately equal to price. However, in accordance with the Randolph – Sheppard Act

- 34 CFR § 395.33 the State of California's Department of Rehabilitation will be allowed to propose as the State Licensing Authority (SLA) for the Randolph - Sheppard Act. The solicitation is a competitive HUBZone set-aside, but also permits the SLA, which may not be considered a Small Business concern, to participate in the procurement. The priority embodied in the Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-SA) takes precedence over small business preferences.

Therefore, if the SLA’s proposal is determined to be in the competitive range and remains so after discussions, in accordance with the R-SA, the Government will award the contract to the SLA. To be in the competitive range a proposal must be technically acceptable and have satisfactory confidence in performance. A neutral past performance rating for a HubZone offeror will suffice for a competitive range determination. The SLA will be required to provide a subcontracting plan to afford small business an opportunity to perform aspects of the requirement. Should the SLA not be eligible for award the remaining offerors will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation - Commercial Items”.

(End)

FA9301‐16‐R‐0010 DFAC