ATTACHMENT 12 DOCUMENTING PAST PERFORMANCE-KEY QUESTIONS TO ASK

1.  Have more relevant past performance assessments been considered more heavily in the overall rating than less relevant assessments?  Does the final rating and documentation convey this?

2.  If any past performance information was discounted from evaluation because it was found to be non-relevant, was the rationale for this determination addressed?

3.  How did Section M of the RFP say that recency would be evaluated?  If it said that more recent past performance would be considered more heavily in the overall rating than less recent, has the evaluation been accomplished correctly?  Does the final rating and documentation convey this?

4.  Have adverse past performance issues on other than non-relevant contracts (that the offeror did not have a prior opportunity to comment upon) been discussed with the offeror?  Does the PAR or other documentation reflect the resolution of any discussions about adverse past performance and the impact of the adverse information on the overall confidence rating?

5.  Even when information is not adverse in nature, have instances when respondents provided divergent comments about a given effort been investigated and satisfactorily resolved?  Has this been documented?

6.  If subcontractors are proposed, is the proposed scope of effort (both amount of work and type of work) for the prime and subcontractors addressed?

7.  Does the overall rating tie the relevancy and recency of the past performance information to the scope of the proposed effort for the prime and subcontractors?  Specifically, how does the work that was evaluated for primes/subcontractors relate to the specific kind of work the prime/subcontractor will be performing for the proposed effort?

8.  For offerors with the same final confidence ratings, does the documentation convey consistency of evaluation?

9.  Are the confidence assessment ratings assigned and the documentation used to support the rating consistent with the definitions listed in MP5315.3, Table 3?

10.  Has the evaluation of past performance been consistent with what was presented in Section M of the solicitation?

11.  Have the automated data systems (PPIRS, CCASS, ACASS, etc.) appropriate for the acquisition, been reviewed, data analyzed, and documented in your Past Performance evaluation?

12.  If Questionnaires were used, were responses received covering the most relevant projects/contracts?  If not, were appropriate follow-ups made to ensure the ratings are based on the most meaningful data, rather that just considering whatever data someone was willing to initially submit?