PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. 7.1 This contract is subject to a performance evaluation. Following the end of each contract period and at contract completion, a Government evaluation shall be forwarded to the contractor. The contractor may submit written comments, if any, within the time period specified in the evaluation transmittal. The contractor’s comments shall be considered in the issuance of the final evaluation document. Any disagreement between the parties regarding the evaluation shall be forwarded to the KO. The final evaluation of the contractor’s performance is the decision of the KO. A copy of the final performance evaluation report will be sent to the contractor and to the Government’s past performance database at xxx.xxxxx.xxx .
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, The past performance evaluation considers each Contractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the Government’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Contractor after evaluating the Contractor’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Government’s requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the Past Performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy (including context of data), and Quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information).
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Offerors will be evaluated on performance under existing and prior contracts for recent, relevant supplies. Performance information will be used as an evaluation factor as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.304(c)(3). The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality and timeliness of performance. Offerors lacking recent relevant past performance information may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably but will receive a neutral rating. The Contractor’s past performance will be evaluated in light of the responses received from the Offeror’s proposed references. The Government intends to review Government databases, including but not limited to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), specifically with regard to the nature of the business area(s) involved and its relevance as it relates to this solicitation. Only relevant past performance information shall be considered. In order for past performance to be relevant it must include the manufacturing of propulsion shafts and be similar in scope. In order to be technically acceptable, the offeror must have a history of Satisfactory or better past performance or receive a Neutral rating.
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort, accomplished by the offeror, is to the effort to be acquired, through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requi...
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION a. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, The past performance evaluation considers each Contractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the Government’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Contractor after evaluating the Contractor’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Government’s requirements.
b. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: (1) Evaluation of the Contractor’s past performance to determine how relevant recent efforts accomplished by the Contractor are to the effort to be acquired through the source selection; and (2) Determination of how well the Contractor has performed on previous awards.
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed. Past Performance shall be evaluated unless waived by the PCO, in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b)(1), elects not to use it as an evaluation factor. Past performance will be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the following criteria:
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. (1) The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance as defined in Section 2.2 above. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort, accomplished by the offeror, is to the effort to be acquired, through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. There are two (2) levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved aspects of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’...
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The Government will evaluate past performance using the information provided by each offeror and may also solicit past performance information from other sources. The Offeror should describe work on similar projects in terms of technical accomplishments, technology transitions, on-time completions, financial management, experience for work that is similar to managing a manufacturing technology center, and a demonstrated ability to address performance or schedule problems through corrective actions.
