(USS RAMAGE) Attachment S-7 Proposal Assessment.xlsx

Section L & M Requirements

- Proposals must be submitted as one .zip file per ship/proposal, formatted so that each Volume 1 Price Volume and each Volume 2 Technical Volume are submitted in separate file folders clearly marked. Each Volume shall be formatted with separate files submitted for each Factor.

- All files uploaded must be scanned to ensure that there are no computer viruses within the file. The files shall be in a format that is compatible with and capable of being opened in the most current Microsoft Office Suite or Adobe Acrobat. The proposal shall have separate files. All spreadsheets shall be in Microsoft Excel format such that each mathematical equation is obvious and traceable.

Text: shall be Times New Roman with a minimum of 12 point font.

(1) For any WI with a total value of zero labor hours proposed (prime and subcontractor combined) (although material is proposed), provide an explanation as to why.

For any work item (WI) with a total dollar value of zero dollars proposed in the Pricing Workbook (Attachment J-4) provide an explanation as to why. In addition, if applicable:

(2) For any WI with a total dollar value of zero material proposed (prime and subcontractor combined) (although labor is proposed), provide an explanation as to why.

at https://www.sba.gov/contracting/contracting-officials/goaling.

a) Identifies the specific pier(s) intended to be used for each proposed Availability, and

b) Indicates that those pier(s) meet the minimum characteristics of Table 1/Enclosure (1) of Attachment S-5.

The Government will assess price proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine reasonableness of proposed pricing based on the information contained in the availability’s Pricing Workbook (Attachment J-4).

i. Contractor Navy Audit request.

ii. Contractor preparation of facility spaces to be inspected. Contractor shall describe when they expect these facilities to be available to complete necessary inspections and any risks to their availability. The Contractor shall state if no risks will be present as a result of this action.

iii. Navy examination of the facility, facility certification report, maintenance program documentation, and operational records.

iv. Navy observation of a docking or undocking operation, whenever possible. In the case of a floating dry dock, this operation shall include a submergence test to the maximum dock draft.

v. Navy evaluation of the control inspection, operating, and maintenance procedures.

vi. Navy preparation of exit brief and formalized in a written report.

vii. Contractor actions to resolve any identified deficiencies. Contractor shall explain the time allotted to deficiency resolution and any associated risks.

viii. Navy examination of actions to resolve deficiencies.

2. Assess if the proposed drydock is certified in accordance with MIL-STD-1625, and remains certified from the ‘Dock Vessel’ through ‘Undock Vessel’ milestones as outlined in the Execution Milestones & Key Events (Attachment J-3). Should the drydock be uncertified or certification lapse anytime during the period between the ‘Dock Vessel’ through ‘Undock Vessel’ milestones, assess whether the Offeror has adequately described a plan for certification or recertification in accordance with MIL-STD-1625 and the requirements of Section L.

d) Complete the Pier and Dry Dock Graphical Representation Template (Attachment S-8) to demonstrate the Offeror has the pier and dry dock available to complete the requirements of the proposed availability. Attachment S-8 must show:

i. The piers and dry docks expected to be in working capacity by month from proposal submission through the Contract Completion Date in Attachment J-3 and

ii. The awarded and outstanding projects and work using those resources by month. The Attachment S-8 must include:

(1) The piers and dry-docks required to complete work the Offeror currently has under contract based on current contract schedules.

(2) The piers and dry-docks required to complete all outstanding proposals, including this proposal, per proposed schedules.

(3) The piers and dry-docks required to complete any other anticipated requirements, including but not limited to Non-Navy work, pier and dry-dock upgrades, maintenance or dredging.

3. Assess whether the proposal demonstrates the Offeror's capability to provide the required physical resources to complete the availability. An emphasis will be placed on how the Offeror plans to de-conflict anticipated physical resource conflicts.

i. The Government will assess whether the Attachment S-8 (Pier and Drydock Graphical Representation):

a) Shows the piers and dry docks expected to be in working capacity by month from proposal submission through the Contract Complete Date in Attachment J-3

b) Shows the awarded and outstanding projects and work using those resources by month. The Government will assess whether the Attachment S-8:

• Identifies the piers and dry docks required to complete projects the Offeror currently has under contract based on current contract schedules.

• Identifies the piers and dry docks required to complete all outstanding proposals including this proposal per proposed schedules.

• Identifies the piers and dry docks required to complete any other anticipated requirements, including but not limited to non-Navy work, pier and dry dock upgrades, maintenance, and dredging.

4. Assess whether the narrative:

a). Explains the use of a subcontracted pier or dry dock, if proposed, and what resources the prime contractor will provide

b) Explains how the Offeror will resolve pier and dry dock conflicts as a result of award of other outstanding proposals

c) Explains, if necessary, the steps to berth or dock the ship within seven days of unberthing or undocking another ship or docking within seven days of the start of the availability.

5. The Government will review Attachment S-8 and Attachment S-4 (required for Non-Price Factor 2 to assess:

i. Schedule risks to projects that may impact the solicited availability’s docking resources. As a general rule, the Government will consider projects that have a TCPI greater than CPI by 0.15 as schedule risks.

e) Provide a narrative not to exceed 10 pages to support the Attachment S-8 and address:

i. If the Offeror proposes a subcontracted pier or dry dock, explain the resource requirements that the prime contractor will provide and the pier and dry dock that the subcontractor will provide.

ii. The Offeror's plan to resolve pier and dry dock resource conflicts as a result of proposed and awarded projects. Piers and dry docks must not be committed to multiple ships during the same time period without explanation.

iii. If the Offeror proposes an interval of less than seven days between the unberthing or undocking date of another requirement and the proposed berthing or docking date of this availability or a proposed docking date within the first seven days of this availability, then detail the necessary steps to accomplish this effort.

Non-Price Factor 2 (Manpower) (Section L) Non-Factor 2 Evaluation Criteria (Section M) Proposal Reference

(1) Manpower Performance Data Sheet (Attachment S-4): Provide a completed Manpower Performance Data Sheet, (Attachment S-4) in Microsoft Excel in the format provided in this solicitation. Include all projects, defined as Navy or Non-Navy Ship Repair and New Construction Projects, for which the Offeror is the prime or a major subcontractor (performing 30% or more of a CNO availability or comparable portion of a Non-Navy project) which were active (on-going or completed) or planned (awarded or proposed) (including the proposal for this solicitation) during the first month identified in Attachment S-4 and the Contract Complete Date of this solicitation. All projects, which are yet to complete (on-going or planned), require monthly data throughout the full duration. In the case that an on-going project began prior to the date range provided within the S-4, this will require the Offeror to modify the S-4 so that the provided data captures the project’s full duration. The Attachment S-4 must capture all work performed by the Offeror within the shipyard and at the local Naval Station, if the Offeror’s shipyard is within the homeport fleet concentration area. The Offeror may estimate performance information for subcontractors based on prime contractor budgets and the prime contractor’s actual outlays to subcontractors. Enter remaining growth work options in the distinguished column/row, using the phasing assumptions provided in Section B Note F.

The “Definitions” tab within Attachment S-4 defines the following terms: Contract / Actual / Forecast Start and Completion Date, Project Status, Time-now, Cumulative Earned Value, Time-phased Earned Value, Full Time Equivalents (FTE), Budget at Complete (BAC), Estimate at Complete (EAC), Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS), Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP), Budget to Complete (BTC), Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP), Estimate to Complete (ETC), Cost Performance Index (CPI), To-Complete Cost Performance Index (TCPI), Schedule Performance Index (SPI), Remaining Growth Options, New Work, Prime Contractor Labor, Overtime Labor, Subcontractor Labor, and Temporary Labor.

a) For each project, provide the Earned Value (hours) data on a time phased, month-by-month basis (month-ending) over each project’s duration, from the Actual / Forecast Start Dates to the Actual / Forecast Completion Dates.

b) For each project, verify the cumulative hour values calculated within the S-4 in the “Cumulative EV” tab align with internal earned value information. If the cumulative calculation does not align with the internal earned value information, then enter the value manually and “Insert Comment” to the manually adjusted cell that describes the discrepancy. Provide the additional project related information requested in the “Cumulative EV” tab (all cells that are green).

b) Provide a list of holiday dates in the “Holiday Calendar” tab. If the monthly reporting dates associated with the monthly earned value data are not aligned to the calendar month, then provide the appropriate values for the “Month Start” and “Month End” in the “Monthly EV” tab (rows 3 and 4). This date information is necessary to convert the monthly hours data into monthly FTE as described in Attachment S-4.

The Government will assess the quality and risk of the Offeror’s plan to provide efficient manpower to successfully complete the availability’s requirements with a focus on workload assessment, schedule performance, labor composition and the associated narrative.

1) Workload Assessment: The Government will compare the Offeror’s Historical Yard-Wide FTE against the Performance-Based ETC FTE required between Time-now and the 20% Duration Date for both the Minimum Workload Forecast and Maximum Workload Forecast.

• Current Yard-Wide FTE: The Government will represent the Offeror’s Current Yard-Wide FTE by averaging the yard-wide FTE during the 4 months prior to Time-now.

• Performance-Based ETC FTE: For in-progress projects where the To-Complete Cost Performance Index (TCPI) is greater than the cumulative Cost Performance Index (CPI), the Government will re-estimate and assess a Performance-Based ETC FTE by applying these projects’ cumulative Cost Performance (CPI) to the remaining Budget to Complete (BTC). For projects that have yet to start or have a TCPI less than or equal to the cumulative CPI, the Government will assess these projects’ ETC FTE data provided in the Attachment S-4.

• 20% Duration Date: the calculated date that represents the 20% duration point of the solicited availability. The 20% Duration (date) = the SOA (date) + 0.2 * Duration (days)

• Minimum Workload Forecast: Includes the solicited availability and all on-going and awarded projects between Time-now and the 20% Duration Date.

• Maximum Workload Forecast: Includes the solicited availability, all awarded projects, and all proposed projects between Time-now and the 20% Duration Date. If in the proposal, the Offeror explicitly states conflicts between two or more outstanding proposals or lists award options for outstanding proposals, then the Government will assess the scenario that generates the largest FTE requirement without conflicts.

(a) Current Yard-Wide FTE that exceeds the average Performance-Based ETC FTE required between Time-now and the 20% Duration Date by 50 FTE or more will be assessed as a strength that has merit in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract execution. Note: The degree of merit increases as the historical FTE level increases over the calculated ETC FTE level.

(b) A Current Yard-Wide FTE more than 50 FTEs under the average Performance-Based ETC FTE required between Time-now and the 20% Duration Date will be assessed as a weakness unless the narrative demonstrates that the FTEs is not a risk under the circumstances proposed for the subject availability. Note: The degree of risk increases as the calculated ETC FTE level increases over the historical FTE level. As a general rule, the government will perceive the degree of risk assessed based on the table below.

2. Labor Composition – The Government will assess the workforce composition by analyzing prime and subcontractor FTEs demonstrated historically in context to the forecasted FTEs within the Offeror’s Manpower Chart requirement in Section L, paragraph V.B.2a.

(a) The Government may identify a strength if the Offeror plans to complete the Expected Workload Forecast with less than or equal to 45% combined subcontractor and temporary labor FTE. This characteristic may be assessed as a strength that has merit in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract execution. This characteristic will only be considered a strength if it is demonstrated in the historical data and/or if the narrative details a strong plan to attain this characteristic through future actions. The strength of this plan will be assessed based on the narrative’s supporting detail: historical examples, time-phased approach and reasonableness.

i. Note: As a general rule, the degree of merit increases as the combined percentage of subcontractor and temporary labor FTE decreases below 45%.

(b) The Government may identify a weakness if the Offeror plans to complete its Expected Workload Forecast with greater than 45% combined subcontractor and temporary labor FTE. This characteristic will be assessed as a weakness unless the narrative demonstrates that the percentage to be subcontracted is not a risk under the circumstances proposed for the subject availability.

ii. 1. Note: As a general rule, the degree of risk increases as the combined percentage subcontractor and temporary labor FTE percentage increases over 45%.

3. Narrative Assessment – The Government will assess the Offeror’s narrative with a specific focus on the Offeror’s:

(a) Explanations and mitigations of weaknesses in Yard-Wide FTE and Labor Composition. The Government will assess the time phased plan, data, and historical evidence that support the Offeror’s risk mitigations. The Government will assess the reasonableness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach. The Government may assess a weakness if the narrative includes a plan for increased utilization of overtime and/or temporary labor.

(2) Manpower Charts: Provide manpower charts reflecting the data in Attachment S-4. The manpower charts must represent each project’s ACWP and ETC within the Actual / Forecast Start Date and Actual / Forecast Completion Date for each project provided in Attachment S-4. The manpower charts must show separate stacked areas for each project in the chart. The manpower charts must meet all format requirements stated in “Manpower Charts Format” tab within Attachment S-4. The “Manpower Charts Format” tab within Attachment S-4 includes an example manpower chart formatted to requirements. Provide the following manpower charts:

a) Manpower chart showing the total FTE resources required for all projects completed, on-going, awarded, the solicited availability and the Offeror’s remaining outstanding proposals, as provided in Attachment S-4.

b) Manpower chart showing the total FTE resources required for all projects completed, on-going, awarded, the solicited availability and the Offeror’s executable award scenario from the Offeror’s remaining outstanding proposals accounting for all un-mitigatable resource conflicts, as provided in Attachment S-4. This manpower chart is not required if it produces the same chart required in Section L, paragraph V.B.2b)(1) above.

(3) Manpower Narrative: Provide a narrative to characterize the workload information from the manpower charts required in Section L, paragraph V.B.2b)(1)-(2), by describing and quantifying the: historical yard-wide FTE levels, forecasted yard-wide FTE levels, and the composition of historical/forecasted FTE values for: prime straight, prime overtime, subcontracted, and temporary labor. The narrative must explain how and when the Offeror plans to adjust or maintain the current workforce to achieve the proposed forecasted FTE levels and whether the adjustment occurs via additional hiring, use of subcontractors, use of temporary labor, or overtime. Provide supporting data and historical evidence to the maximum extent possible. The narrative should not exceed 20 pages. Address the following possibilities:

a) Any existing constraints between outstanding proposals that would prohibit the Offeror from executing one or more outstanding proposals.

b) Should the Offeror propose to hire additional personnel for the solicited availability, the narrative must quantify the proposed number of hires and describe the plan to hire and manage the additional personnel from Time-now through Contract Completion Date.

c) Should the Offeror propose overtime for the solicited availability, the narrative must include: the historical overtime rate, the forecasted overtime rate, and the plan to manage and provide the overtime from Time-now through Contract Completion Date.

d) Should the Offeror propose temporary labor for the solicited availability, the narrative must include: the historical temporary labor FTE, the forecasted temporary labor FTE, and the plan to manage and provide the temporary labor from Time-now through Contract Completion Date.

e) Should the Offeror propose subcontracted resources for the solicited availability, the Offeror must explain which requirements the prime contractor will complete and which work the subcontractor will complete, including the work item, trade, and duration of each subcontracted requirement. The Government considers the use of subcontractors in excess of 45% of production labor to increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The Offeror must include in its narrative a plan to manage the subcontractor manning levels included from Time-now through Contract Completion Date.

f) The Offeror must explain any atypical circumstances that caused or contributed to poor historical earned value performance. The Offeror must address how its proposed approach for the evaluated project reflects resiliency to atypical causes of risk (e.g. government furnished material delays or foreseeable trade labor demand).

The Government will assess the Offeror’s narrative with a specific focus on the Offeror’s:

i. Explanations and mitigations of weaknesses in Yard-Wide FTE and Labor Composition. The Government will assess the time phased plan, data, and historical evidence that support the Offeror’s risk mitigations. The Government will assess the reasonableness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach. The Government may assess a weakness if the narrative includes a plan for increased utilization of overtime and/or temporary labor.

i. Offerors shall enter a proposed milestone for 20% Open/Inspect (Early). The 20% Open/Inspect (Early) milestone is the Offeror’s proposed milestone for submission of O&I Reports prior to the 20% Milestone. The proposed date shall be entered into both Attachment J-3 and an “X” in the appropriate column in the J-10.

ii. Offerors shall enter a proposed milestone for 20% Open/Inspect (Docking). The 20% Open/Inspect (Docking) milestone is the Offeror’s proposed milestone for submission of O&I Reports tied to Undocking in accordance with NSI 009-60. The milestone shall be set at 20% of the docking duration proposed by the contractor. This date will auto-calculate on the Attachment J-3 based on the Offerors proposed Docking and Undocking milestones. An “X” shall be entered in the appropriate column in the J-10.

iii. Offeror’s shall enter a proposed milestone for 20% Open/Inspect (Exception). The 20% Open/Inspect (Exception) milestone is the Offeror’s proposed milestone for submission of O&I Reports after the 20% Milestone. The proposed date shall be entered into both Attachment J-3 and J-10. An “X” shall be entered in the appropriate column in the J-10.

iv. Offerors shall enter a proposed milestone for 20% Open/Inspect (All). The 20% Open/Insect (All) milestone is set forth on Attachment J-3. For any milestone that is not Early Docking, or Exception related the auto-calculated date shall be entered into Attachment J-10. An “X” shall be entered in the appropriate column in the J-10.

i. For each accelerated O&I proposed to be an early, assess the extent to which the Offeror’s plan demonstrates a detailed, substantiated and complete understanding of the:

a. Work scope and logical schedule sequencing required to feasibly complete the O&I and provide the associated report by the Offeror’s proposed accelerated Early O&I Reports Milestone (20% Open/Inspect (Early)

b. Potential positive impacts, including impact on volume of growth work, created by the acceleration of the specific O&I,to the Offeror’s ability to deliver the availability on-time. The government will assess the degree to which any potential positive impacts are explained, quantified and substantiated with analogies to historically completed projects or historical / engineering informed parametric estimates.

ii. For each Delayed O&I proposed to be an exception, assess the extent to which the Offeror’s plan demonstrates a detailed, substantiated and complete understanding of the:

a. Work scope and logical schedule sequencing that necessitates the completion of the O&I and provision of the associated report by the Offeror’s proposed delayed Exception O&I Reports Milestone (20% Open/Inspect (Exception).

b. Potential risks, including impact on volume of growth work, created by the delay of the specific O&I, to the Offeror’s ability to deliver the availability on-time. The government will assess the degree to which any risk impacts are explained and quantified.

c. Mitigations necessary to resolve risks and deliver the availability on-time. The government will assess the degree to which the feasibility & effectiveness of risk mitigations are explained, quantified and substantiated with analogies to historically completed projects or historical / engineering informed parametric estimates.

(2) O&I Reports Plan:

The Offeror’s O&I Reports Plan shall:

i. Explain the rationale supporting the selection of the date for the 20% Open/Inspect (Early) milestone.

ii. Explain the overall logic and rationale supporting the Offeror’s selection of O&I Reports work items for the 20% Open/Inspect (Early) milestone. The explanation shall:

(1) Substantiate the Offeror’s ability to provide the O&I Reports by the 20% Open/Inspect (Early) milestone.

(2) Substantiate how the Offeror’s sequencing and prioritization improves the Offeror’s ability to provide on-time delivery of the availability.

(3) Explain the rationale supporting the selection of the date for the 20% Open/Inspect (Exception) milestone, demonstrating that the date is feasible and supports on-time delivery of the Availability.

iii. Explain the overall logic and rationale supporting the Offeror’s selection of O&I Reports for the 20% Open/Inspect (Exception) milestone. For each exception the Offeror shall:

(1) Explain why the Offeror requires an exception to provide the O&I Reports by the 20% Open/Inspect (Exception) milestone (examples for the rationale include, but are not limited to, sequencing conflicts, stability concerns, and work integration.)

(2) Identify and explain the risks to an on-time delivery of the availability created by the delayed provision of the Reports.

(3) Identify and substantiate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s risk mitigations to ensure the delay does not undermine the Offeror’s ability to provide on-time delivery of the availability.

iv. No additional justification is required for on time reports.

• Duration between completion of ShipAlt DDG51-79521K, AN/SLQ-329(V)7 to Aegis Light Off (ALO)

(1) The Offeror shall accomplish the following for each phase:

i. Create a summary master schedule, identifying and explaining the phase’s major components / processes and identify the components / processes that will comprise the phase’s critical path.

ii. An estimate of the number of days the Offeror will require to complete each component / process within each phase The Offeror must substantiate their estimates with data informed schedule estimating relationships. Examples of substantiation may include (but are not limited to):

A. Analogies to historically completed projects B. Historical or engineering informed parametric estimates

iii. Identify and explain the most likely major risks the Offeror sees in their ability to complete each phase’s scope within the phase’s proposed duration.

iv. Identify and quantify contingencies available to the Offeror to mitigate those risks. Examples of substantiation may include (but are not limited to):

A. Schedule float B. Capacity for additional shifts C. Capacity to incorporate additional personnel

v. Substantiate the estimated effectiveness of each potential risk mitigation contingency. Substantiation must include schedule estimating relationships to demonstrate mitigation effectiveness. Examples of substantiation may include (but are not limited to):

A. Analogies to historically completed projects B. Historical or engineering informed parametric estimates i. For each phase, assess the extent to which the Offeror’s plan:

a. Demonstrates a detailed and complete execution plan to complete the phase’s scope of work in alignment with the Offeror’s proposed key events / milestones, including the:

1. Phase’s major components / processes,

2. Components / processes that will comprise the Offeror’s critical path,

3. Most likely to be experienced major risks to complete each phase’s scope within the phase’s proposed duration, and the

4. Type and quantity of contingencies available to the Offeror within their execution plan to mitigate those risks

b. Substantiates the reasonableness of the Offeror’s schedule estimating relationships for the number of days required to complete the phase’s components / processes and the effectiveness of each potential risk mitigation contingency. In completing this review, the Government will utilize the DoD Cost Estimating Guide, version 2.0 published 02 Feb 2022 to assess the degree to which the Offeror has identified the estimate, explained what the estimate is based on, how the estimate is derived, and why the estimate is reasonable. At minimum, the Navy’s review will determine:

1. The extent to which the Offeror clearly stated the estimate value and units, identified the associated scope that is included in the estimate, and articulated what is and what is not included within the estimate.

2. The extent to which the Offeror clearly identified the data source supporting the estimate and demonstrated that the data used to support their estimate is relevant to the estimated scope. Relevant data is targeted and timely, meaning the data reflects the production plant, personnel, processes, procedures, and organizational knowledge / experience reasonably reflective of those to be used in the solicited availability.

• For estimates based on an analogous projects, the Navy will review the extent that Offerors explained why the analogous project is reasonably similar to the estimated element to serve as an analogy and that reasonably similar analogies are representative and unbiased. For estimates based on a historical performance data set, the Navy will review the extent that Offerors demonstrated that the historical performance data used to create the estimate is based on is representative and unbiased. For estimates based on industry standards or commercial estimating software tools, the Navy will review the extent that Offerors demonstrate that the standard or tool yields estimates that are representative and unbiased of the Offeror’s historical and expected performance for the element estimated (based on a comparison to population data or data obtained through random sampling).

3. The extent to which the Offeror clearly identified and explained the estimating methodology being used such as 1) Analogies to historically completed projects, 2) Extrapolation of Historical Actuals, 3) Parametric estimates, 4) Industry Standards, 5) Commercial Estimating Tools etc., including all estimating steps and adjustments. The Offeror will be evaluated base on the extent that the Navy is able to recreate and substantiate each step of the Offeror’s estimating methodology.

4. The extent to which the Offeror clearly substantiates why their chosen estimating methodology is expected to yield the most accurate, precise and unbiased estimate, given available alternative methods. For all estimating methodologies, the Navy will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identified any scope differences between the basis of estimate (analogy project, historical data set, industry standards, or estimating tools) and the estimated element. The basis of adjustments for scope differences must be substantiated.

Where the Offeror does not have recent or relevant past performance information, the Offeror shall affirmatively state that it does not have recent and relevant past performance information for the Government to consider.

If the Offeror does not have CPARS and is required to submit Attachment S-9, the Offeror shall submit a request to their customers to complete the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) NLT 30 days prior to the closing date of this solicitation. The Offerors request to their customer shall include the request to submit completed PPQs to Name, Contracting Officer, email and Name, Contract Specialist, email, prior to the closing date of this solicitation.

The Past Performance factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will use information provided by the Offeror, as well as any other information deemed necessary as noted in Section L, V, B, 4 to assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on a demonstrated record of past performance, taking into consideration the recency and relevancy of the past performance information. In evaluating an Offeror’s past performance, the Government reserves the right to contact former customers, Government agencies and other private and public sources of information.

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 or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. The evaluation will include information provided by the Offeror demonstrating compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 ALT II.