Common use of Basis of Evaluation Clause in Contracts

Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, and on other recent, relevant contracts documented in known sources. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts. The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering: – A pattern of successful completion of tasks; – A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality; – A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and – Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Basis of Evaluation. The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the requirement outlined in the solicitation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will evaluate consider how well the offeror Offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects contracts submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, 3 and may also consider past performance on other recent, relevant contracts currently documented in known sources. There are three aspects The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the past performance evaluation: recencyinformation, relevancythe source of the information, context of the data, and qualitygeneral trends in the Offeror’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Offeror’s responsibility determination. The first is to evaluate the recency assessment of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offerorOfferor’s past performance and how well will be used as a means of evaluating the offeror performed on Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history requirements of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contractssolicitation. The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARSPPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) a trend of satisfactory performance record in terms of quality, schedule and management. An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if, based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance records is unknown. An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if, based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. The Government may use information such as (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering: – A pattern of successful completion of tasks; – A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality; – A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and – Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand . In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not availableavailable or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). In this caseTherefore, the offeror’s offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “neutralunknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE”

Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, and on other recent, relevant contracts documented in known sources. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts. The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering: – − A pattern of successful completion of tasks; – − A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality; – − A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and – − Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, and on other recent, relevant contracts documented in known sources. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts. The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARSPPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering: – A pattern of successful completion of tasks; – A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality; – A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and – Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE