PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Module Lead: OO-ALC/PKCA July 2007

2. 2 Course Overview Length: 1 Hour Method of delivery: Slide Presentation Course contents: Past Performance Definition Applicability Policy Uses

3. 3 Overview Purpose of Training What, Why, When and Who Past Performance versus Responsibility Determination Past Performance Activities Early Activities Prior to Issuance of Draft RFP/RFP Prior to Proposal Receipt After Receipt of Proposals Summary

4. 4 Purpose of Training Provide an understanding of past performance evaluation and the process for effectively using it as an evaluation factor in �best value� source selections.

5. 5 What requires past performance evaluation? 1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) dated October 13, 1994 (Public Law 103-355) It is appropriate and relevant that a contracting official consider a contractor�s past performance as an indicator that the offeror will successfully perform a contract to be awarded. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.304(c)(iii)

6. 6 Past Performance Evaluation Validates statements made in proposal Integral to best value source selection Motivates contractors to strive for excellence Recognizes good performance Reduces risk and oversight The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror�s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users� needs including cost and schedule. (MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3) Why evaluate past performance? To aid the government�s decision process and award contracts to those companies that consistently produce and deliver quality products, on time and within cost!The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror�s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users� needs including cost and schedule. (MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3) Why evaluate past performance? To aid the government�s decision process and award contracts to those companies that consistently produce and deliver quality products, on time and within cost!

7. 7 When Is Evaluation of Past Performance Required? All competitively negotiated acquisitions exceeding $100,000 unless contracting officer documents why past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor (FAR 15.304(c)(iii)). However, based on DoD class deviation 99-O0002 (January 29,1999) the thresholds are: $5.5M for systems and operations support, $1M for services, information technology, and $100,000 for fuels or health care. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(iii), the government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $100,000 unless otherwise documented by the Contracting Officer as to why past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor. However, for DoD pursuant to Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29,1999, the thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(iii), the government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $100,000 unless otherwise documented by the Contracting Officer as to why past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor. However, for DoD pursuant to Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29,1999, the thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care.

8. 8 Who Does Past Performance (PP) Evaluation? Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) for source selections > $100M PP evaluations for source selections < $100M may be PCAG or individual(s) identified in source selection plan (if applicable) Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Technically Acceptable Performance Price Tradeoff (TA-PPT) Technically Acceptable Risk Performance Price Tradeoff (TA-RPPT) Full Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures ($1M to $100M) MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.2 requires a PCAG for Source Selections >$100M. A PCAG is optional for Source Selections <$100M. Past Performance evaluations for Source Selections <$100M may be conducted by a PCAG or by individual(s) identified in the Source Selection Plan which is approved by the SSA. The Buyer/Contracting Officer and/or Technical Evaluator may be the Past Performance Team needed for a relatively small acquisition where only a limited number of proposals is expected. The team may need to be expanded for larger acquisitions where a significant number of proposals are expected. Activities listed for the PCAG in this briefing also apply to the Past Performance Team when a PCAG is not used. MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.2 requires a PCAG for Source Selections >$100M. A PCAG is optional for Source Selections <$100M. Past Performance evaluations for Source Selections <$100M may be conducted by a PCAG or by individual(s) identified in the Source Selection Plan which is approved by the SSA. The Buyer/Contracting Officer and/or Technical Evaluator may be the Past Performance Team needed for a relatively small acquisition where only a limited number of proposals is expected. The team may need to be expanded for larger acquisitions where a significant number of proposals are expected. Activities listed for the PCAG in this briefing also apply to the Past Performance Team when a PCAG is not used.

9. 9 PCAG Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) is a group tasked with accomplishing the past performance evaluation The PCAG is a part of the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) Responsible for conducting the past performance confidence assessment through a review and analysis of the offeror�s recent, current and relevant performance The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel tasked with accomplishing the past performance evaluation for a source selection. The PCAG is a part of the SSET in accordance with MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. MP5315.3 paragraph 5.4.1 states the PCAG shall conduct the past performance assessment. In conducting the assessment, each offeror shall be assigned a confidence rating. The confidence assessment measures the level of confidence the government has in the offeror�s ability to perform. The confidence assessment rating is based on the quality of the performance that has been determined to be recent/current and relevant performance.The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel tasked with accomplishing the past performance evaluation for a source selection. The PCAG is a part of the SSET in accordance with MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. MP5315.3 paragraph 5.4.1 states the PCAG shall conduct the past performance assessment. In conducting the assessment, each offeror shall be assigned a confidence rating. The confidence assessment measures the level of confidence the government has in the offeror�s ability to perform. The confidence assessment rating is based on the quality of the performance that has been determined to be recent/current and relevant performance.

10. 10 Past Performance VersusResponsibility Determination Does the offeror have the capability to perform? Can the offeror do the work? PCO determines if offeror is responsible Does the offeror have the capability to perform? Conduct a Preaward survey Check PPIRS It is important to distinguish comparative past performance evaluations used in the source selection (tradeoff) process from responsibility determinations. Responsibility Determination is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, quality assurance, and past performance. Pre-award surveys and pass/fail evaluations provide a yes/no, pass/fail, or go/no-go answer to the question, Can the offeror do the work? The answer to this question helps the PCO determine whether the offeror is responsible. It is critical that these concepts be understood because of the small business COC process inherent in the responsibility process. It is important to distinguish comparative past performance evaluations used in the source selection (tradeoff) process from responsibility determinations. Responsibility Determination is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, quality assurance, and past performance. Pre-award surveys and pass/fail evaluations provide a yes/no, pass/fail, or go/no-go answer to the question, Can the offeror do the work? The answer to this question helps the PCO determine whether the offeror is responsible. It is critical that these concepts be understood because of the small business COC process inherent in the responsibility process.

11. 11 PP Versus Responsibility Determination Identifies the degree of confidence associated with each competing offeror Will the offeror do the work successfully? Evaluation describes the degree of confidence government has that the offeror will succeed Based on the quality of recent, relevant performance Unlike a responsibility determination, a comparative past performance evaluation conducted during the source selection process is a very specific endeavor that seeks to identify the confidence associated with each competing offeror. The question asked in this process is will the offeror do the work successfully? The evaluation describes the degree of confidence the government has that the offeror will succeed. If properly conducted, the comparative past performance evaluation and the responsibility determination complement each other and provide a more complete picture of an offeror than either one could by itself. Unlike a responsibility determination, a comparative past performance evaluation conducted during the source selection process is a very specific endeavor that seeks to identify the confidence associated with each competing offeror. The question asked in this process is will the offeror do the work successfully? The evaluation describes the degree of confidence the government has that the offeror will succeed. If properly conducted, the comparative past performance evaluation and the responsibility determination complement each other and provide a more complete picture of an offeror than either one could by itself.

12. 12 Past Performance Activities I. Early Activities II. Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP III. Prior To Proposal Receipt IV. After Receipt of Proposals These are the past performance activities that we will discuss now.These are the past performance activities that we will discuss now.

13. 13 Early Activities � PCAG Members PCAG chairperson or Past Performance team lead Number of members depends on complexity of the acquisition and number of proposals expected Members should be experienced personnel familiar with work required by the acquisition Members should include a person(s) who will have to live with the results of the source selection The PCAG is a team of experienced personnel assigned to accomplish the past performance evaluation. Total membership of the PCAG (including administrative support) depends on the complexity of the acquisition and the number of proposals expected. The individuals selected as members may be either military or government civilian, no contractor personnel. It is important that personnel assigned to the PCAG are familiar with the work required by the acquisition. At least one or two members should be personnel assigned to the organization that will receive the product or service being acquired; assign a person(s) that will have to live with the contract after award. The PCAG is a team of experienced personnel assigned to accomplish the past performance evaluation. Total membership of the PCAG (including administrative support) depends on the complexity of the acquisition and the number of proposals expected. The individuals selected as members may be either military or government civilian, no contractor personnel. It is important that personnel assigned to the PCAG are familiar with the work required by the acquisition. At least one or two members should be personnel assigned to the organization that will receive the product or service being acquired; assign a person(s) that will have to live with the contract after award.

14. 14 Early Activities Obtain early industry involvement (such as one-on-one meetings, requests for information, or pre-solicitation conference) to resolve concerns with Relevancy and recency definitions Questionnaire Past performance evaluation Review latest past performance guidance on ACE website Discuss management processes for the source selection Handling of information and tracking proposals, questionnaire responses, ENs, etc. Secure work area with phones, fax machine and locking file cabinets (if not utilizing XR-ACE source selection facilities) Early industry involvement is essential to resolve concerns on past performance evaluation, relevancy and recency definitions and questionnaires before release of the RFP. The team�s early communications with potential offerors could consist of one-on-one meetings (must meet with all potential offerors) usually hled in conjunction with Industry Day, pre-solicitation conferences, requests for information, and draft request for proposals (DRFP). The PCAG should review the latest past performance evaluation guidance on the XR-ACE website. The PCAG should discuss handling of information and tracking proposals, questionnaire responses, ENs, etc. Will the PCAG team utilize the XR-ACE source selection facilities? Early industry involvement is essential to resolve concerns on past performance evaluation, relevancy and recency definitions and questionnaires before release of the RFP. The team�s early communications with potential offerors could consist of one-on-one meetings (must meet with all potential offerors) usually hled in conjunction with Industry Day, pre-solicitation conferences, requests for information, and draft request for proposals (DRFP). The PCAG should review the latest past performance evaluation guidance on the XR-ACE website. The PCAG should discuss handling of information and tracking proposals, questionnaire responses, ENs, etc. Will the PCAG team utilize the XR-ACE source selection facilities?

15. 15 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Prepare past performance portion of Sec L, M, and the questionnaire Utilize the best value/source selection templates found on the ACE website as your starting point. They contain the recommended language that states what past performance information the government requires in the proposal Tailor the template to fit your acquisition: what constitutes recent performance? 3 years? What is your definition of a critical subcontractor? Decide if the past performance volume will be required earlier than proposal Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should prepare the past performance portion of Section L and Section M, and draft the questionnaire prior to issuance of the Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) or RFP. The key to successful use of past performance in the source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what past performance information the government will evaluate and the evaluation process. Utilize the best value source selection template found on the XR-ACE website as a starting point and tailor to your needs. Determine what constitutes recent performance for your acquisition. Determine if there is the potential for a critical subcontractor to perform some portion of the effort, and hence, the need to evaluate the past performance of the critical subcontractor. Define what constitutes a critical subcontractor. Do you want the past performance volume to be submitted earlier than the rest of the proposal? Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should prepare the past performance portion of Section L and Section M, and draft the questionnaire prior to issuance of the Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) or RFP. The key to successful use of past performance in the source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what past performance information the government will evaluate and the evaluation process. Utilize the best value source selection template found on the XR-ACE website as a starting point and tailor to your needs. Determine what constitutes recent performance for your acquisition. Determine if there is the potential for a critical subcontractor to perform some portion of the effort, and hence, the need to evaluate the past performance of the critical subcontractor. Define what constitutes a critical subcontractor. Do you want the past performance volume to be submitted earlier than the rest of the proposal?

16. 16 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Utilize Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) Templates Samples https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/organizations/ace/ Check for Ambiguities between Sections L & M

17. 17 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Utilize the best value/source selection templates found on the ACE website as your starting point. They contain the recommended language that states how past performance information will be evaluated. Tailor the template to fit your acquisition. The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important, approximately equal to cost/price, or significantly less important than cost/price. However, past performance must be at least as important as most important non-cost factor. The PCAG will assign a performance confidence assessment to the past performance factor IAW MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3 Utilize the best value/source selection templates found on the ACE website as your starting point. They contain the recommended language that states how past performance information will be evaluated. Tailor the template to fit your acquisition. Per FAR 15.304(e), the solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important, approximately equal to cost/price, or significantly less important than cost/price. However, past performance must be at least as important as most important non-cost factor. (MP5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.3). The PCAG will assign a performance confidence assessment to the past performance factor. Utilize the best value/source selection templates found on the ACE website as your starting point. They contain the recommended language that states how past performance information will be evaluated. Tailor the template to fit your acquisition. Per FAR 15.304(e), the solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important, approximately equal to cost/price, or significantly less important than cost/price. However, past performance must be at least as important as most important non-cost factor. (MP5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.3). The PCAG will assign a performance confidence assessment to the past performance factor.

18. 18 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Rating Description High Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Significant Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems. Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable (see FAR15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)). Little Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following performance confidence assessments: High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Unknown Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following performance confidence assessments: High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Unknown Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence.

19. 19 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Relevancy definitions must be in DRFP/RFP PCAG must determine how to define relevancy Consider the following when developing relevancy definition: Relevant does not mean same or identical Relevant means similar to instant acquisition to provide indicators of performance. Consider such things as product or service similarity, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value/size, program phase, division of company, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual efforts? Prime, joint ventures, subcontractors When tailoring the template, the PCAG must determine how to define relevancy for your acquisition. Consider the following when developing the definition or definitions for relevancy: (a) Relevant does not mean the same or identical product/service. (b) Relevant means sufficiently similar to the instant acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, consider such things as product or service similarity, product or service complexity, contract type, contract dollar value/size, program phase, the division of the company which will do the work, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. (c) How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual efforts�prime contracts, joint ventures, teaming partners, and subcontracts? The PCAG should give consideration to the effort, or portion of the effort, that will be proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract will be reviewed. Are the relevancy definitions written to support evaluation of a portion of the requirement?When tailoring the template, the PCAG must determine how to define relevancy for your acquisition. Consider the following when developing the definition or definitions for relevancy: (a) Relevant does not mean the same or identical product/service. (b) Relevant means sufficiently similar to the instant acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, consider such things as product or service similarity, product or service complexity, contract type, contract dollar value/size, program phase, the division of the company which will do the work, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. (c) How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual efforts�prime contracts, joint ventures, teaming partners, and subcontracts? The PCAG should give consideration to the effort, or portion of the effort, that will be proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract will be reviewed. Are the relevancy definitions written to support evaluation of a portion of the requirement?

20. 20 Relevancy Example Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Examples may include such things as � Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Examples may include such things as � Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Past/present performance efforts involved little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Here are the relevancy definitions the ACE recommends you utilize. The definitions start off with the standard language, which is the same for all types of best value source selections in which past performance is an evaluation factor. The ACE then recommends that you tailor the definitions to your specific acquisition by including examples of relevant efforts. Here are the relevancy definitions the ACE recommends you utilize. The definitions start off with the standard language, which is the same for all types of best value source selections in which past performance is an evaluation factor. The ACE then recommends that you tailor the definitions to your specific acquisition by including examples of relevant efforts.

21. 21 Prior To Proposal Receipt DEVELOP YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE: Purpose of questionnaire is to obtain information on past and present performance Structure questionnaire to obtain helpful information about the offeror�s performance Make questionnaire easy to complete but avoid yes/no answers Questions should elicit information that relates to mission capability (technical) subfactors and price/cost factor Questionnaire must define a scale for rating the quality of performance The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from government and/or non-government sources on the offeror�s past and present performance. Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror�s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoiding yes/no answers. The questionnaire should elicit information about the offeror�s performance as it relates to the technical factor. Consider including at least one question for Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from government and/or non-government sources on the offeror�s past and present performance. Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror�s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoiding yes/no answers. The questionnaire should elicit information about the offeror�s performance as it relates to the technical factor. Consider including at least one question for Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance.

22. 22 After Receipt of Proposals Step 1 Conduct relevancy and recency screening by  determining relevancy of each effort and validate recency Step 2 Search for additional relevant efforts Step 3 Pursue other sources of information on offerors: CPARS, PPIRS, DLA, DCMA, Dun and Bradstreet Step 4 Review questionnaire responses. Conduct and document interviews on completed  questionnaires The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to reread the entire solicitation, paying particular attention to Sections L and M. Step One � The first step in the past performance evaluation is for the PCAG to screen the efforts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its relevance and recency to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this relevancy and recency screening in accordance with the definitions and criteria set forth in Section M of the RFP. The objective of the screening is to remove those efforts that are clearly not relevant from further consideration. Step Two � In addition to the efforts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant efforts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the efforts identified by the offeror since these may not give a true picture of the contractor�s past performance. Step Three � Aggressively pursue other sources of information on offerors. John Hein in PKPF is the CPARS focal point. Consider contatcing DCMA, DLA, or Dun and Bradstreet. Step Four � Review questionnaire responses. Conduct interviews with POCs who completed some questionnaires but there is incomplete information. Immediately following the interview, the PCAG member must prepare a summary of the conversation. The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to reread the entire solicitation, paying particular attention to Sections L and M. Step One � The first step in the past performance evaluation is for the PCAG to screen the efforts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its relevance and recency to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this relevancy and recency screening in accordance with the definitions and criteria set forth in Section M of the RFP. The objective of the screening is to remove those efforts that are clearly not relevant from further consideration. Step Two � In addition to the efforts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant efforts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the efforts identified by the offeror since these may not give a true picture of the contractor�s past performance. Step Three � Aggressively pursue other sources of information on offerors. John Hein in PKPF is the CPARS focal point. Consider contatcing DCMA, DLA, or Dun and Bradstreet. Step Four � Review questionnaire responses. Conduct interviews with POCs who completed some questionnaires but there is incomplete information. Immediately following the interview, the PCAG member must prepare a summary of the conversation.

23. 23 After Receipt of Proposals Step 5 Rate quality of performance for each offeror and  critical subcontractors Rate performance on each relevant effort Evaluate poor performance if necessary Consolidate data for each offeror Identify positive and negative aspects for past performance factor Step 6 Perform an assessment of performance confidence at factor level as stated in Section M and thoroughly document the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step 7 Prepare Evaluation Notices (ENs) for adverse past performance information and other past performance issues Step Five � Rate quality of Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror�s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Effort. Accomplish an analysis of each effort. Document results. b. Evaluate Poor Performance, If Necessary. Accomplish a critical analysis of each effort to ascertain performance, cause and effect of poor (adverse) performance record, e.g. who was really at fault: government, contractor or both. c. Consolidate Data For Each Offeror. Consolidate results of the relevant analysis showing the total relevant information for an offeror. d. Identify positive and negative aspects for Past Performance Factor. Identify evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind based on past and present performance. Step Six � Perform an assessment of performance confidence at the factor level in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The PCAG will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of performance for the prime and subcontractors, as it relates to the work each will be performing. Thoroughly document the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step Seven - Evaluation Notices are exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications or discussions. Prepare ENs for all adverse past performance information that the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate, when the effort is determined to have a somewhat relevant or higher relevancy rating by the PCAG. Even when award without discussions is contemplated, ENs for clarification may be required. Prepare ENs on any other past performance issue also. Step Five � Rate quality of Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror�s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Effort. Accomplish an analysis of each effort. Document results. b. Evaluate Poor Performance, If Necessary. Accomplish a critical analysis of each effort to ascertain performance, cause and effect of poor (adverse) performance record, e.g. who was really at fault: government, contractor or both. c. Consolidate Data For Each Offeror. Consolidate results of the relevant analysis showing the total relevant information for an offeror. d. Identify positive and negative aspects for Past Performance Factor. Identify evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind based on past and present performance. Step Six � Perform an assessment of performance confidence at the factor level in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The PCAG will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of performance for the prime and subcontractors, as it relates to the work each will be performing. Thoroughly document the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step Seven - Evaluation Notices are exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications or discussions. Prepare ENs for all adverse past performance information that the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate, when the effort is determined to have a somewhat relevant or higher relevancy rating by the PCAG. Even when award without discussions is contemplated, ENs for clarification may be required. Prepare ENs on any other past performance issue also.

24. 24 After Receipt of Proposals Step 8 Evaluate responses on ENs Step 9 Review performance confidence assessments and positive/negative aspects based on additional information in response to ENs. Thoroughly document any changes to the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step 10 Prepare PCAG briefing charts and participate in the briefings to the SSA Step Eight � Evaluate responses to ENs. Determine changes to the individual evaluations based on additional information received from the offerors. Thoroughly document any changes to the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step Nine � Review performance confidence assessment based on additional information received in Step Nine. Review evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind (positive and negative aspects). Make revisions as justified and document reasons for changes. Step Ten � Prepare the PCAG briefing charts and participate in the briefings to the SSA. Step Eight � Evaluate responses to ENs. Determine changes to the individual evaluations based on additional information received from the offerors. Thoroughly document any changes to the evaluation results in the PCAG Report. Step Nine � Review performance confidence assessment based on additional information received in Step Nine. Review evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind (positive and negative aspects). Make revisions as justified and document reasons for changes. Step Ten � Prepare the PCAG briefing charts and participate in the briefings to the SSA.

25. 25 Past Performance Evaluation Example This reflects an example of a past performance evaluation for an offeror.This reflects an example of a past performance evaluation for an offeror.

26. 26 Summary Evaluation of past performance is important in the source selection process RFP Sections L and M must clearly state requirements for proposals and how evaluation will be conducted PP evaluation must be done IAW Section M Be consistent among offerors The solicitation must clearly state what information must be submitted and how that information will be evaluated. The key to a successful award is to evaluate past performance in accordance with how you stated you would, and be consistent among all offerors. The solicitation must clearly state what information must be submitted and how that information will be evaluated. The key to a successful award is to evaluate past performance in accordance with how you stated you would, and be consistent among all offerors.