The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Attachment
| Quote Evaluation Tables |
| Table 1 – Technical Acceptability Rating |
| Acceptable |
| Technical proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation |
| Unacceptable |
| Technical proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation |
Table 2 – Relevancy Definitions
| Assessment Area |
| Very Relevant |
| Relevant |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Not Relevant |
| Scope / Complexity |
| Responsible for Base Custodial services almost equal to or equal to the tasks required by the Contract Line Item Numbers and the Edwards AFB Performance Work Statement, performed as the prime contractor. |
| Responsible for Base Custodial services somewhat less than the tasks required by the Contract Line Item Numbers and the Edwards AFB Performance Work Statement, performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor. |
| Responsible for Base Custodial services significantly less than the tasks required by the Contract Line Item Numbers and the Edwards AFB Performance Work Statement, performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor. |
| Magnitude |
| Performed as a Prime Contractor on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $5M. |
| Performed on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $3M. |
| Performed on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $1M. |
| Contract Type |
| Performance under a Firm-Fixed Priced (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Indefinite Delivery Requirements contract |
| Performance under an FFP (non-ID/IQ) contract, task order, or purchase order |
| Performance under a cost reimbursable contract or any other fixed price arrangement |
| Contract Environment |
| Contract performance on an Air Force Base or Air Force Reserve Base within the United States |
| Contract performance on a DoD installation within the United States |
| Contract performance at a Federal, State, County, or City facility within the United States |
Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
| Very Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires |
| Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires |
| Not Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires |
Table 4 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire Ratings
| Exceptional |
| Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Neutral |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective |
| Performance was not observed or applicable to the current effort being reported against. |
Table 5 – 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 |
FA9301-22-Q-0011 pg. 2 of 2
