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. Acceptable: Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerors performance record is unknown*. Unacceptable: Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. *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 in accordance with 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. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is to evaluate whether the offerors present and past performance is relevant or not relevant to this requirement. Relevant is considered past performance within the last 5 years for work completed on the Prpphet Enhanced System or considered similar to the requirements of the system. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed work on relevant current or past performance. The Government may use any of the following sources of past performance information: - Sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), Xxxx & Bradstreet D&B) or other databases; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. - Past Performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited or information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition. Price Evaluation: The Government will determine the total evaluated price by multiplying the quantity to be awarded by the proposed unit price. The Government will then use the total evaluated price to identify the lowest total price for award on the proposal that is found technically acceptable...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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. (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.
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
Past Performance Factor. (Volume II) By acquiring and reviewing information from a variety of sources, the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s suitability to fulfill the requirements of this contract. The Government will evaluate the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and major subcontractors, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, subcontractors and an organization that will substantially contribute to the proposed contract, or have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract. Specifically, the Government will evaluate information on past and current performance regarding the relevant areas below.
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
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: Definition of 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 relevan...
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:

  • 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 The specific representation of a process or outcome that is relevant to the assessment of performance; it is quantifiable and can be documented

  • 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 Satisfactory performance of this Contract will be measured by:

  • 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 A-1 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), but only to the extent that the Committee has first determined that the exercise of such discretion would not cause the Performance Share Units to fail to qualify as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code. 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.

  • Annual Performance Bonus In each calendar year of the Term of Employment, Executive shall be eligible to receive an annual incentive bonus (the “Annual Bonus”) payable in cash, pursuant to the performance criteria and targets established and administered by the Board (or a committee of directors to whom such responsibility has been delegated by the Board), with a target Annual Bonus of at least 100% of his Base Salary. The Annual Bonus payable to Executive each year shall be determined and payable as soon as practicable after year-end for such year (but no later than March 15th). The Executive’s cash bonus for the stub period of 2017 will be determined in the reasonable business judgment of the Board or another committee of directors to whom such responsibility has been delegated by the Board. To be entitled to receive any Annual Bonus, except as otherwise provided in Sections 5(c) and 5(d), Executive must remain employed through the last day of the calendar year to which the Annual Bonus relates.

  • 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 MEASUREMENTS Upon a particular Commission’s issuance of an Order pertaining to Performance Measurements in a proceeding expressly applicable to all CLECs generally, BellSouth shall implement in that state such Performance Measurements as of the date specified by the Commission. Performance Measurements that have been Ordered in a particular state can currently be accessed via the internet at xxxx://xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx. The following Service Quality Measurements (SQM) plan as it presently exists and as it may be modified in the future, is being included as the performance measurements currently in place for the state of Tennessee. At such time that the TRA issues a subsequent Order pertaining to Performance Measurements, such Performance Measurements shall supersede the SQM contained in the Agreement. BellSouth Service Quality Measurement Plan‌ (SQM) Tennessee Performance Metrics Measurement Descriptions Version 2.00 Issue Date: July 1, 2003 Introduction

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.