Relevancy Sample Clauses

Relevancy. The work demonstrates the Team's ability to support and perform all aspects of ECOE's scope of services. One of the most significant outcomes of the project to date is that the auction allowed MDGS to obtain 100 million kWhs of environmentally friendly green power at no cost premium when compared to conventional power bids received on the same accounts the same day. WORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONS WORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS REVERSE ENERGY AUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTRACT NAME DELIVERY ORDER NAME AWARD DATE - COMPLETION DATE ------------- ------------------- ---------------------------- District of Columbia Order For Commercial Items 11/2004 - Ongoing CONTRACT NUMBER, AGENCY DELIVERY ORDER NUMBER DOLLAR AMOUNT ----------------------- --------------------- ------------- Office of Contracting and Procurement n/a $0 CUSTOMER TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE CUSTOMER CONTRACTUAL REPRESENTATIVE --------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Xx. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xx. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Assistant Commodity Manager / Assistant Commodity Manager / Contracting Officer Contracting Officer Government of the District of Columbia Government of the District of Columbia Office of Contracting and Procurement Office of Contracting and Procurement (000) 000-0000 (000) 000-0000 Xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxx Xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxx Customer Type: Government Contract Type: Performance Based SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED In December 2004, OCP contracted with the Team of World Energy Solutions, Inc. (WE) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform an electricity procurement for the District of Columbia (DC) valued at $41.2 M. The resulting contract served over 600 DC Government accounts in four rate classes. In addition to producing an estimated $5.5M in cost avoidance savings, the contract included 5% or 33M kWh of renewable power at a minimal cost premium when compared with generic power bids. The Team was able to provide a complete range of services to OCP. These included creating a supplier quality database consisting of over 7,000 lines, assisted in the re-writing of the supply Solicitation, meetings with agency heads and city council members to education them on energy market volatility and its effect on pricing, and ensuring the transference of accounts correctly. In addition, OCP was provided with a complete audit-trail and due diligence record of all correspondence, supply solicitation re-writes, market ...

Relevancy. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation: a) The government will evaluate the offeror’s “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-5, to determine the information is complete and accurate in accordance with

Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s recent past performance is relevant to the required effort. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission in order to determine its similarity in scope and magnitude relative to this requirement. In establishing what is relevant for this acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that have the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current requirement. Evaluation of relevance will include determination of similarity of scope and magnitude: M.3.6.4.2.1. Scope - The measure of services similarity to the requirements identified in the solicitation. Scope will be assessed by comparing the referenced requirements to the requirements outlined in the PWS Task Area 2. M.3.6.4.2.1. Magnitude – The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actual performed work that exists between the PWS and the Offeror’s references. Magnitude will be evaluated on the dollar amount of work actually performed on the recent past performance references. A past performance reference with a total contract value greater than or equal to $6.5 million will be considered to have essentially the same magnitude. A past performance reference greater than or equal to $5.0 million but less than $6.5 million will be considered similar in magnitude. A past performance reference greater than or equal to $3.0 million but less than $5.0 million will be considered somewhat similar in magnitude. A past performance reference that is less than $3.0 million will be considered not of similar magnitude, and therefore not relevant.

Relevancy. For each past performance contract submitted, the government will evaluate the past performance contract to determine how relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals. In determining relevancy, the government will compare the contract types, total dollar amounts, dollar amounts of the effort actually performed, the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort, the period of performance of the past performance contract, and the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the past performance effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation. The government will assign each past performance contract one of the following relevancy ratings:

Relevancy. As it pertains to Past Performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Relevancy. For the purposes of evaluation, the Government will first evaluate the past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the effort to be acquired. Recent is defined as current work or work completed within the past six years from date of solicitation issuance. To be considered relevant, past performance shall be similar in scope. Similar in scope is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for self-performed tasks involving managing 100 or more employees (under a single contract). For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel (as a prime, subcontractor, or within a partnership). Projects that involve managing 100 or more employees (under a single contract) that also include Aviation Instruction experience will be evaluated more relevant than all other experience. Projects that involve managing 200 or more employees (under a single contract) will be evaluated more relevant than projects managing less than 200 employees (under a single contract).

Relevancy. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation 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 is 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 scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires compared with recent effort(s) accomplished by the Offeror. Scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities included, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of Key Personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Relevancy ratings are based on the definitions below: 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 requires.

Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. The scope and magnitude of task order 1 and 2 shall be used for relevancy comparison. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the task areas in Section 6 and dollar value. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Past performance efforts with higher relevance may be accorded greater weight than those with lower relevance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1). Efforts assessed as Not Relevant will not be further evaluated 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 requires. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some 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.

Relevancy. You may only submit search terms and descriptions to Network Solutions and the Advertising Services that are relevant to your Website(s) or to those web page(s) contained in your

Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to the required effort. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine scope and magnitude relative to this requirement. In establishing what is relevant for this acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that have the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current requirement. Evaluation of relevance will include determination of similarity of scope and magnitude: