Relevancy Assessment. Relevant means of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of size, scope, and technical and regulatory complexity in accordance with the requirements outlined in the PWS. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts or task orders relate to the Technical factors and Price Factor in this solicitation, including their relative order of importance (reference M002 A). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical factors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The SSEB will evaluate offerors’ past performance information and make a relevancy determination based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained internally or from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts as shown in Table 43.
Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct a relevancy assessment of each project/contract submitted by the offeror to determine the work performed under those projects/contracts relates to the work described in the RFP’s Attachment 9 and its associated appendices. The Government is not obliged to seek out and consider information other than the information the offeror submits but may at its discretion consider information involving other projects/contracts. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of projects based on the evaluation scale in the table shown above. The terms “scope”, “magnitude” and “complexity” have broad meaning such that evaluators will consider any feature of a past project/contract which has a predicative effect on performance on the current contract. The purpose of assessing relevancy is to take into account the predictive value of past effort toward success on this contract. Therefore, work performed under a Government contract may be considered more relevant than work performed under a commercial contract. Work that is completed or substantially completed may be determined to be more relevant than work that is just starting. In addition, past performance as a prime contractor may be more relevant than the past effort performed as a subcontractor.
Relevancy Assessment. Relevant means of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of size, scope, and technical and regulatory complexity in accordance with the requirements outlined in the PWS. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts or task orders relate to the Technical factors and Price Factor in this solicitation, including their relative order of importance (reference M002 A). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical factors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The SSEB will evaluate offerors’ past performance information and make a relevancy determination based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained internally or from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts as shown in Table 43. TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS Rating Definition 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 Assessment. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. To be determined relevant, the past performance effort must demonstrate the following performance in relation to the current procurement:
Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an Offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.
Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations in section L.5.1.2. 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. Similar contracts are described in section L.5.1.2. Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition 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.
