Past Performance Factor Sample Clauses

Past Performance Factor. The past performance evaluation result is an assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the minimum requirements. Past performance shall be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis using the rating descriptions listed below.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Past Performance Factor. This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each Offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the current acquisition. This factor provides an opportunity to evaluate the quality of goods and services provided by the Offerors to the agency and other organizations as either a prime or subcontractor. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded contracts. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and 1815.305(a)(2). When applying the definitions below to arrive at a confidence rating, the SEB’s evaluation shall clearly document each Offeror’s relevant past performance (e.g., currency/relevancy, size, content and complexity) to assess the Offeror’s overall confidence rating assigned. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. Past Performance shall be evaluated for each Offeror using the following levels of confidence ratings: Very High Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist. ) High Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.) Moderate Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is ...
Sample 1
Past Performance Factor. (a) The evaluation of Past Performance will be conducted in accordance with the FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70. The Offeror’s and major subcontractors overall past performance on contracts of similar size, content, and complexity to the ISC will be evaluated. The evaluation will be based upon both the Offeror’s inputs, responses from references as well as information obtained from any other sources. This factor is not numerically weighted or scored. (b) The Offeror’s and major subcontractors safety and health performance, along with OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses for comparable contracts, and records of OSHA and EPA citations for the last three years of performance will be considered. (c) The Offeror’s record of past participation of SB and SDB concerns in subcontracts and the type of work subcontracted to SB and SDB concerns, such as production, engineering services, research, and development will be considered. The Offeror’s earning of associated incentives will be considered. (d) The Government will evaluate proposals and assign one of the following adjectival ratings: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, or Neutral. (e) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will receive a rating of Neutral. (f) The adjectival ratings are defined as follows:
Sample 1
Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts.
Sample 1
Past Performance Factor. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. To develop an overall rating, the Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by each offeror as part of its proposal and the Government’s assessment and evaluation of other sources of information. Offerors are cautioned the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Other sources of information for past performance may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Report System (ESRS), and other databases, questionnaires, and interviews.
Sample 1
Past Performance Factor. 2.1 There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal sub-contractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price/cost, and schedule requirements on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated. 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” shall be considered “acceptable.”
Sample 1
Past Performance Factor. This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each Offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the current acquisition. This factor provides an opportunity to evaluate the quality of goods and services provided by the Offerors to the agency and other organizations as either a prime or subcontractor. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded contracts. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2). When applying the definitions below to arrive at a confidence rating, the SEB’s evaluation shall clearly document each Offeror’s relevant past performance and the currency of the past performance to assess the Offeror’s overall confidence rating assigned. Past Performance shall be evaluated for each Offeror using the following levels of confidence ratings:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Past Performance Factor. (Volume II)
Sample 1

Related to Past Performance Factor

  • Performance Factors (a) Each party will notify the other party of the existence of a Performance Factor, as soon as reasonably possible after the party becomes aware of the Performance Factor. The Notice will: describe the Performance Factor and its actual or anticipated impact; include a description of any action the party is undertaking, or plans to undertake, to remedy or mitigate the Performance Factor; indicate whether the party is requesting a meeting to discuss the Performance Factor; and address any other issue or matter the party wishes to raise with the other party. (b) The recipient party will provide a written acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice within 7 Days of the date on which the Notice was received (“Date of the Notice”). (c) Where a meeting has been requested under paragraph 7.2(a)(3), the parties agree to meet and discuss the Performance Factors within 14 Days of the Date of the Notice, in accordance with the provisions of section 7.3.

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • Past Performance The Government will evaluate the contractor's performance on the NETCENTS-2 Orders provided in Exhibit B, CDRL B001. The PCO will determine the quality of the work performed based on an integrated assessment of data obtained in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) and information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with customers, program managers and/or contracting officers for NETCENTS-2 task orders. Based on the contractor performance records above, the PCO will determine if there is an expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required efforts under the unrestricted NetOps and Infrastructure Solutions contract.

  • Performance Measure Grantee will adhere to the performance measures requirements documented in

  • Performance Period This Agreement shall be performed during the period which begins Oct 01 2020 and ends Sep 30 2022. All services under this Agreement must be rendered within this performance period, unless directly specified under a written change or extension provisioned under Article 14, which shall be fully executed by both parties to this Agreement.

  • Performance Measurement The Uniform Guidance requires completion of OMB-approved standard information collection forms (the PPR). The form focuses on outcomes, as related to the Federal Award Performance Goals that awarding Federal agencies are required to detail in the Awards.

  • Performance Goal (a) Subject to the following sentence, the Performance Goal is set out in Appendix A hereto, which Appendix A is incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 13 or any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Committee reserves the right to unilaterally change or otherwise modify the Performance Goal in any manner whatsoever (including substituting a new Performance Goal). If the Committee exercises such discretionary authority to any extent, the Committee shall provide the Grantee with a new Appendix A in substitution for the Appendix A attached hereto, and such new Appendix A and the Performance Goal set out therein (rather than the Appendix A attached hereto and the Performance Goal set out therein) shall in all events apply for all purposes of this Agreement. (b) Depending upon the extent, if any, to which the Performance Goal has been achieved, and subject to compliance with the requirements of Section 4, each PSU shall entitle the Grantee to receive, at such time as is determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, between 0 and 2.0 Shares for each PSU. The Committee shall, as soon as practicable following the last day of the Performance Period, certify (i) the extent, if any, to which, in accordance with Appendix A, the Performance Goal has been achieved with respect to the Performance Period and (ii) the number of whole and/or partial Shares, if any, which, subject to compliance with the vesting requirements of Section 4, the Grantee shall be entitled to receive with respect to each PSU (with such number of whole and/or partial Shares being hereafter referred to as the “Share Delivery Factor”). Such certification shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Grantee, and on all other persons, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

  • Annual Performance Bonus During the Employment Term, the Executive shall be entitled to participate in the STIP, with such opportunities as may be determined by the Chief Executive Officer in his sole discretion (“Target Bonuses”), and as may be increased (but not decreased, except for across-the-board reductions generally applicable to the Company’s senior executives) from time to time, and the Executive shall be entitled to receive full payment of any award under the STIP, determined pursuant to the STIP (a “Bonus Award”).

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Performance Metrics The “Performance Metrics” for the Performance Period are: (i) the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities; (ii) the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (Major Events Excluded) (“XXXXX”); (iii) Arizona Public Service Company’s customer to employee improvement ratio; (iv) the OSHA rate (All Incident Injury Rate); (v) nuclear capacity factor; and (vi) coal capacity factor. (1) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (i) of this Subsection 6(a), the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey will provide data on an annual basis reflecting the Company’s percentile ranking, relative to other participating companies. (2) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (ii) of this Subsection 6(a), the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”) will provide data on an annual basis regarding the XXXXX result of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its XXXXX result for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (3) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iii) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL, an independent third party data system, will provide data on an annual basis regarding the customer and employee counts; the Company will use its customer and employee counts for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those companies whose customers and employees were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (4) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iv) of this Subsection 6(a), EEI will provide data on an annual basis regarding the OSHA rate of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its OSHA rate for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (5) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (v) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the nuclear capacity factors of the participating nuclear plants; the Company will calculate its nuclear capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (6) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (vi) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the coal capacity factors of the participating coal plants; the Company will calculate its coal capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (7) The Company’s percentile ranking during the Performance Period for each Performance Metric will be the average of the Company’s percentile ranking for each Performance Metric during each of the three years of the Performance Period (each, an “Average Performance Metric”); provided, however, that if the third year of a Performance Metric is not calculable by December 15 of the following year, the Performance Metric shall consist of the three most recent years for which such Performance Metric is calculable. The Company’s “Average Performance,” for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b) above will be the average of the Average Performance Metrics. If only quartile, rather than percentile, rankings are available for a particular Performance Metric, the Average Performance Metric for any such Performance Metric shall be expressed as a percentile. For example, if the Performance Metric was in the top quartile for two Performance Periods and in the lowest quartile in the other Performance Period, the average of these quartiles would be 3 (the average of 4, 4, and 1) and the Average Performance Metric would be the 75th percentile (3 /4). The calculations in this Subsection 6(a)(7) will be verified by the Company’s internal auditors. (8) If either EEI or SNL discontinues providing the data specified above, the Committee shall select a data source that, in the Committee’s judgment, will provide data most comparable to the data provided by EEI or SNL, as the case may be. If the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities (or a successor JD Power survey) is not available during each of the years of the Performance Period, the Performance Metric associated with the JD Power Residential Survey (Subsection 6(a)(1)) will be disregarded and not included in the Company’s Average Performance for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b).

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!