Common use of Past Performance Clause in Contracts

Past Performance. a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Past Performance. a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five the Offeror’s, and (5if applicable) most relevant government or commercial its principal entities’, demonstrated past performance contract references in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will be based on customer feedback of contracts in the performance areas of Technical, Schedule, Cost, and Management. The recency and relevancy of the prime contract and principal subcontractors’ recent past performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and relevant general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. Relevancy and recency are defined in Part C Definitions. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the contracts or orders included in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary) provided in Attachment L-1 (Executive Summary Tables) and Attachment L-3 Table PP-1 (Past Performance Contract Data) for recency and relevancy of the past performance. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past Past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance considered recent if the contract or order has been performed within five (5) years of the RFP issuance proposal due date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five Contracts performed more than (5) years of before the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award proposal due date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting considered for the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence past performance rating. In generalPast performance that is not recent will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of all recent contracts or order to determine whether the past performance was relevant or not relevant, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence using the definitions included in Part Evaluation Rating and Risk Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0Definitions. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a A separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past assigned based on an integrated assessment of all performance effort of areas. This assessment will address the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s performance record and systemic improvement. The term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the Government than references provided records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on behalf of recent/relevant work (e.g., CPARs and questionnaires). When proposals are received from contractor entities specifically formed to propose on a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contractsparticular acquisition (e.g., all other things being equal;  teams, joint ventures, etc.), the past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under evaluation will consider each individual team member. In the case of an Offeror without a supply contract will be given more weight than record of past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) or for whom information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team on past performance is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware developmentavailable, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references Offeror will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources receive a rating of a principal subcontractor – “Unknown” which is defined as considered a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient“Neutral” rating.

Past Performance. a) The Government evaluates past performance submissions to determine if they are recent. To meet the consideration as recent, the performance must have occurred within five years of the RFP submission deadline. The Government will evaluate recent past performance submissions for relevancy based on the Offeror’s experience performing tasks similar in size, scope, and complexity. Relevant defined as work similar in scope and magnitude to the work described in this solicitation. The Government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its proposal to evaluate past performance. The Government may use Past Performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data it provides. The Government has no duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. Recent, relevant past performance submissions evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on those contracts. The Government will be evaluated to establish an overall rating for the Offeror’s past performance in accordance with the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 3. Rating Evaluation Criteria Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence reasonable expectation that the offeror Offeror will successfully perform the requirements required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below) Unacceptable 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. **In the case of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and an Offeror without a record of relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial for whom information on past performance contract references of is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. Up to three (3) In the context of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractorsacceptability/unacceptability, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractorneutral rating is “acceptable. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.”

Past Performance. a) Past Performance Evaluation of past performance will primarily be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of information submitted by the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performanceOfferor through its Past Performance Questionnaires. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy(1) First, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are relevant or not relevant to the solicitation requirement; (2) Second, for those efforts considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy Government will then determine how well the Offeror performed on each effort. If the Offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance, information on past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do is not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance dateavailable, or for which no assessment of how well the Past Performance record’s award date cannot Offeror performed can be determineddone, and then the submission will not Offeror shall be evaluated or rateddetermined to have unknown past performance. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent Unknown past performance will be considered more “Acceptable.” The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant than less recent performance. dpast performance information only during the last three years, in accordance with Section L. Information will be gathered in the following areas: (1) customer satisfaction, (2) timeliness, (3) technical success, (4) program management, and (5) quality. The reference information must be current to facilitate the evaluation process. If the Offeror has no relevant past performance within the last three years or cannot provide a list of relevant contracts, then the Offeror must provide an explanation. The Government also reserves the right to consider past performance information available from other sources, including, but not limited to, information in the Contractor Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessmentReporting System (CPARS), the government may also take into account any show cause noticesPast Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/), cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a the Federal Awardee Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The following definition is provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to past performance rating: Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government than references provided has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. Unacceptable Based on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  the Offeror’s performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contractsrecord, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be given more weight than past performance contract references where able to successfully perform the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will berequired effort. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Past Performance. a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under United States government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Past Performance. a) The purpose of evaluating Past Performance is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet the Government’s needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The offeror’s past performance on similar contracts will be evaluated to establish determine the probability of successful performance of contract requirements, quality and timeliness of delivery of services, effective management of subcontractors, cost management, level of communication between the contracting parties, proactive management, and customer satisfaction. Offerors without relevant past performance will be given a “Neutral” rating. The integrated past performance assessment will be performed as follows: Step 1 Determine if the past performance is recent. Past performance references that are not recent may not be considered. Step 2 Determine the degree to which the past performance is relevant based on the contract information provided for the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect Reference Information Sheets. The relevancy is then rated. Step 3 Determine the Government’s confidence that degree to which the offeror has complied to past Subcontracting Plans per FAR 19.702(a)(1), 19.704 and FAR clause 52.219-9. Past performance evaluators will successfully perform accomplish this by contacting the requirements of previous Contracting Officer(s) for verification. Step 4 Obtain a reference assessment to rate the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance recordreferences based on Table 2, criteria below. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of Step 5 Based on these results, the prime source selection performs and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant integrated assessment which results in an overall Performance Confidence Rating which is then assigned to the Offeror’s past performance. Up to three (3) The confidence assessment determines the probability of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past successful performance of key indicators such as contract references may be from principal requirements, quality and timeliness, effective management of subcontractors, with a maximum cost management, level of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to communication between the past performance evaluation: Relevancycontracting parties, proactive management and Demonstrated Past Performancecustomer satisfaction. An initial consideration The evaluation will also consider information contained in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevantgovernment systems such as, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do but not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance datelimited to, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire Reporting System (CPAQCPARS) information provided by another member to evaluate Past Performance, as well as the agency’s knowledge of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; contractor performance, other Government agencies, commercial entities, and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or any other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access sources available to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficientGovernment.

Past Performance. a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up a. Offerors shall provide up to three (3) references for previous or ongoing contracts for the same or similar services as called for in this solicitation provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs or other Federal Agencies. If VA or other Federal experience does not exist, then information may be submitted on state or local government or private sector contracts. Past performance information shall be submitted utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6 of solicitation); one questionnaire must be submitted for each contract. The Government will only consider relevant work performed within the past five (5) most relevant government or commercial years. The Government will consider no more than three (3) past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractorsquestionnaires in total, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime contractor as well as any subcontractor, teaming partners, or joint ventures. Offerors are encouraged to submit their three most relevant examples of past performance. In the event more than three questionnaires are received, the Government will provide a greater level of confidence evaluate only the first three, according to the Government than references provided order in which they are received. b. Past performance information is required on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contractsthe prime contractor, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract as well as any subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint ventures that will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform performing at least 20% of the proposed total contract pricework. Xxxxxx stating that Offerors may also provide information on problems encountered on these identified contracts and the offeror's corrective actions. In addition, provide evidence of any past adverse actions by state, local or federal regulatory agencies (such as citations, notice of violations, etc.). c. Failure to provide any information may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award (NOTE: An offeror with no past/present performance experience should still submit the Past/Present Performance document with an explanation that it has access no recent or relevant experience). In accordance with FAR 15.305, offerors with no relevant past performance or whom information is not available, shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the resources Government. Past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may be used, as appropriate, as part or all of the past performance evaluation. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supporting VA Pittsburgh Healthcare Community Based Outpatient Clinic Services that meet user's needs as identified in the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment #6 of Solicitation). In evaluating the offeror's past performance record, information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The Government will place more weight and consideration on more relevant and recent past performance information. d. Offerors are responsible for providing a principal subcontractor past performance questionnaire (Attachment #6 of Solicitation) to each company they list as a reference. The offeror shall ensure that their references complete the Past Performance Questionnaire and return them by e-mail to Xxxxxxx.xxxx0@xx.xxx. Questionnaires should not be received directly from Offeror, but from Offeror’s reference(s). Please ensure that this information is insufficient.submitted on or before the proposal due date as stated on the front of the Standard Form 1449. 133 of 161 mailto:Xxxxxxx.xxxx0@xx.xxx e. The Government will evaluate Past Performance for both relevancy and quality. The Government may contact references and contact parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current accurate and complete Past Performance information (including completed questionnaires) rests with the offeror. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any source it deems appropriate. 134 of 161

Past Performance. a) Past Performance will be evaluated to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  • past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  • past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  • past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  • performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  • past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  • Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  • past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Past Performance. a) Past Performance performance will be evaluated used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the Vendor to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform meet the requirements of the this solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up Vendors are required to provide information on no more than three (3) of the five firm’s most recently completed Federal Government or Commercial contracts/orders (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects not to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within exceed five (5) years since completion) demonstrating the capability of the RFP issuance datevendor to provide the Government with the type and quality of items covered in SIN 711 2, Worksurfaces, workstation, computer furniture and accessories. A determination In the description of Not Recent work, Vendors should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts in terms of scope and magnitude, to the requirements of the RFQ for purposes of relevancy. Vendors must submit past performance data on contracts/orders whose delivery/performance has been completed as of the closing date of this solicitation. Vendors shall complete and submit a Past Performance Information Form (Attachment V) for each contract/order reference provided. This form shall provide a detailed explanation of the contract/order and adequately demonstrate the supplies furnished were of the type and quality of items covered under SIN 711 2. For each of the references identified by the Vendor, the Vendor is also required to email the attached Past Performance Report Form, (Attachment IV) for completion to the identified reference. The completed Past Performance Report Form shall be forwarded by the reference via email to: Xxxx X.-X. Xxxxxx at xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx. The Government will not accept Past Performance Report Forms directly from vendors, only Past Performance Report Forms submitted on time and from the vendor’s references will be assigned accepted. Past performance information must be received BY THE DUE DATE AND TIME OF THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to offer submissions which do contact references for verification or additional information. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the vendor. Any Past Performance Report Form received at the Government office designated herein after the exact time specified for receipt of past performance information is "late" and may not contain be considered for evaluation. Failure to submit the completed Past Performance Information Forms shall be considered certification (by signature on the submission) that the contractor has no past performance within five (5) years for like or similar items for the Government to evaluate. Vendors are also advised that the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the RFP issuance dateGovernment. The Government will obtain whatever information it deems most relevant to the required effort by phone and/or emailed inquiry. This information may also include queries of Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) or additional past performance information. Vendors past performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If rated Unacceptable, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission quote will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating. In general, more recent performance will be further nor considered more relevant than less recent performancefor award. d) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Past Performance. a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1 Offeror Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE. IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment JL-3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be evaluated submitted directly to establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating that will reflect the Government’s confidence that 's point of contact, Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, via email at xxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxx.xxx prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, based upon the prime and principal subcontractor’s (if proposed) recent and relevant past and present performance record. b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance. Up to three (3) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references may be from principal subcontractors, with a maximum of two (2) references provided for a single principal subcontractor. c) There are two aspects to utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation: Relevancy, and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining Also include performance recognition documents received within the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. In addition to the RFP issuance dateabove, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. A determination Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of Not Recent will team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. For the purpose of evaluation, recent is considered to be assigned to offer submissions which do not contain performance a project within the past five (5) years and relevancy is based on similarity of Safety & Occupational Health services, complexity, dollar value, and contract type. A copy of the RFP issuance date, or for which the blank NAVFAC Past Performance record’s award date cannot Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) to be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or ratedused for requesting client references is included as Attachment JL-3. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence ratingquestionnaires must be submitted not later than the date and time provided in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award,” in sealed envelopes/boxes marked in the bottom right corner “RFP No. In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performanceN40192-20-R-9300. d” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 52.204-7 System for Award Management OCT 2018 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting JUL 2016 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2017 52.215-1 Alt I Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017) -OCT 1997 Alternate I 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or OCT 2010 Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data 252.215-7008 Only One Offer JUL 2019 252.215-7010 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data JUL 2019 Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0Government contemplates award of a combination Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with recurring and non-recurring work resulting from this solicitation. As part The term “recurring work” refers to the Firm-Fixed Price portion of the assessmentcontract, while the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices term “non-recurring work” refers to the IDIQ portion of the contract. NOTE: All prices shall be fixed and terminations for default that are deemed relevant to this solicitation’s effort. e) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or fully burdened at the time of award. The level of effort in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:  past performance contract references of an entity performing as a prime contractor will IDIQ portion shall be considered more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;  past performance contract references provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence subject to the Government than references provided on behalf requirement. (End of a proposed principal subcontractor;  performance under government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;  past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.  Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team is not given as much weight; and  past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be. f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturerprovision), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Xxxxxx stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.