d.  Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to supply products and services that meet users' needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule.

(1)  Ratings.  The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.  Performance confidence assessment ratings are assigned pursuant to M002d(3).

(2)  Evaluation Process.  The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users' needs.  Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.  In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror's Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i)  Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.  To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past ____ years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.  Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii)  Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a).  For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).  Consideration will be given to _______________.  A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made 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) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.  The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

(iii)  Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts.  For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.  The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients.  It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.  Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror's evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program-Disadvantaged Status and Reporting.  Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror's evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.  The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.  Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.  For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.  Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.  The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

(3)  Assigning Ratings.  As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.  Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.  Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort.  A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.  Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.