08 Dec 2023: See attached Amendment 04 to the Synopsis, "Vertical Multi-Region Synopsis - Amendment 04 (20231208)", Government responses to questions 64-72, W9133L-24-R-6100 RFIs and Responses 20231208" 04 Dec 2023: See attached Amendment 03 to the Synopsis, "Vertical Multi-Region Synopsis - Amendment 03 (20231204)", UPDATED Government responses to questions 8 and 44 and NEW Government responses to questions 59 - 63, W9133L-24-R-6100 RFIs and Responses 20231204" 29 Nov 2023: See attached Amendment 02 to the Synopsis, "Vertical Multi-Region Synopsis - Amendment 02 (20231129)" and Government responses to questions 30, and 36 - 58, W9133L-24-R-6100 RFIs and Responses 20231129" NOTE: The date Offerors Files MUST be received has been extended to 3:00 pm Eastern Time on 15 Dec 2023. 22 Nov 2023: See attached Amendment 01 to the Synopsis, "Vertical Multi-Region Synopsis - Amendment 01 (20231122)" and Government responses to questions 1 - 35, "W9133L-24-R-6100 RFIs and Responses 20231122" 17 Nov 2023:See attachedGovernment responses to questions 1 - 12,"W9133L-24-R-6100 RFIs and Responses 20231117" INDEFINITE DELIVERY TYPE ARCHITECT ENGINEER (A-E) CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU IN SUPPORT OF THE AIR AND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE REGIONS 02 09 AND THE TERRITORY OF GUAM CONTRACT INFORMATION: The National Guard Bureau is soliciting for Non-Personal Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services per Public Law 92-582 (Selection of A-E Statute) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As a result of this announcement, the National Guard Bureau intends to award a target of 10 Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) A-E contract awards with three (3) solicited as Other than Small Business (i.e. unrestricted) and seven (7) to be reserved for small business concerns, if there is adequate competition in accordance with FAR 36.602. These contracts will provide Vertical A-E services in support of Air National Guard (ANG) and Army National Guard (ARNG) mission requirements located throughout the Multi-Vertical Region. For tracking purposes, the original regions are identified below but for this procurement all states will be lumped together under one procurement. This requirement includes the following states in each of these eight (8) regions: Region 2 Michigan (MI), New Jersey (NJ), New York (NY), Ohio (OH), and Pennsylvania (PA) Region 3 Delaware (DE), The District of Columbia (DC), Maryland (MD), Virginia (VA), and West Virginia (WV) Region 4 Florida (FL), Georgia (GA), North Carolina (NC), South Carolina (SC), Alabama (AL), and Mississippi (MS) Region 5 Indiana (IN), Kentucky (KY), Tennessee (TN), Arkansas (AR), and Missouri (MO) Region 6 Iowa (IA), Illinois (IL), Minnesota (MN), Wisconsin (WI), North Dakota (ND), South Dakota (SD), Idaho (ID), Montana (MT), and Wyoming (WY) Region 7 Kansas (KS), Louisiana (LA), Oklahoma (OK), Texas (TX), and Nebraska (NE) Region 8 Arizona (AZ), Colorado (CO), New Mexico (NM), and Utah (UT) Region 9 California (CA), Nevada (NV), Oregon (OR), and Washington (WA) The Territory of Guam The total capacity of the ten (10) contracts is $225M. This capacity will be shared among all firms. The Government may award more than three (3) contracts within the Other than Small Business category and seven (7) within the Small Business category depending on the source selection decision regarding how many firms are considered the most highly qualified per the 2022 Selection of A&E Contracts Act selection procedures. Each IDIQ will be for a five-year ordering period from the date of award of all contracts. Guidelines for competition of task orders: Non-Complex A-E requirements with a Task Order amount of less than $1M (or a Programmed Amount (PA) less than $5M) will be set-aside for competition among the pool of Small Business Firms in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F). Complex A-E task requirements with a Task Order amount greater than $1M (or a Programmed Amount (PA) greater than $5M) will be competed among both pools of Unrestricted and Small Business firms. Note: Complexity definition for A-E design task orders is in accordance with DFARS 219.502-2. Firms must state the words (LARGE BUSINESS) or (SMALL BUSINESS) in parentheses after the name of firm in PART I B Block 5 of form SF 330. If a firm is competing for this contract under a contractor team arrangement as defined in FAR Subpart 9.6, the firm must submit, along with their SF 330, a written agreement identifying the contractor team arrangements and fully disclosing the company relationships. In the event this written documentation is not complete at the time of the SF330 submission, the partnership or joint venture shall submit a notarized letter of intent documenting the intent to form the partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor for award of this contract and fully disclosing the company relationships. The partnership or joint venture may (but need not) be in the form of a separate legal entity. The partnership or joint venture need not be registered in SAM.gov at time of SF 330 submission, but each partner in the partnership or joint venture must be registered at the time of submission and the partnership or joint venture must be registered in SAM.gov prior to submission of the firms price proposal. The documentation verifying the joint venture will not be considered part of the page limit for SF 330 submission. Joint Venture Requirements - Parties wishing to propose as a joint venture must submit, with the Pro Forma documents, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement. The joint venture agreement shall be executed in accordance with FAR 4.102(d). Each joint venture partner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer that its Board of Directors has approved its participation in the joint venture or by an instrument of similarly binding character in the case of an unincorporated entity. Offerors are reminded that to obtain an award the awardee, to include a joint venture, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. Applicable to set aside solicitations: Joint Ventures must meet applicable size standards (See FAR Subpart 19.1). Submit with the proposal any size determination for the Joint Venture entity received from the Small Business Administration. A Joint Venture where-in one party is not a small business may be referred to the Small Business Administration (IAW FAR 19.302 (b)) to determine eligibility. All questions regarding Joint Ventures must be directed to the Small Business Administration (SBA) and not the Contracting Officer. This is not a request for a price proposal. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this action is 541330. The Small Business size standard is $25.5M in average annual receipts of a businesss latest five completed fiscal years. Small businesses are encouraged to team with other businesses. These are not requirements contracts. The contract will consist of two (2) ordering periods; one (1) ordering period will be for five (5) years and one (1) optional ordering period for six months with a total contract ceiling of $225M for the entire program. The total contract period shall not exceed five (5) calendar years and an option to extend six (6) additional months. Task orders will be primarily for projects with a construction value typically between $100K and $15M, however, as required, larger and/or smaller projects may be executed. The minimum total fee guaranteed to each contract awardee is $2,500.00. Order limitations are as follows: The Contractor is not obligated to honor: (1) any order for a single item above $7M or (2) any order for a combination of items over $9M. Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed price task orders. Projects to be designed are not yet determined and funds (except those reserved for the minimum fee guarantee) are not presently available. The selection of A-E firms is based on professional qualifications necessary for the performance of the required services (rather than competitive bidding procedures). All A-E firms are cautioned to review the restrictions of FAR 9.5 Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest and FAR 36.209 Construction Contracts with Architect-Engineer Firms. Any A-E firm that prepares a Design-Build Request for Proposal or completes Advanced Planning for a particular project will be restricted from participating in any contract or task order for the Design of that project. All interested Architect-Engineers are reminded that, under the provisions of PL 95-507, they will be expected to place subcontracts to the maximum practicable extent consistent with the efficient performance of the contract with small and small disadvantaged firms. Large business firms that intend to pursue an IDIQ contract must convey their intent to meet the minimum small business goals on the SF330, Section C, by identifying subcontracting opportunities with small businesses. Minimum goals for this procurement are: Small Business (all types of small business combined) 19%; Small Disadvantaged Businesses 5%; Woman Owned Small Business 5%; HUBZone Small Business 3%; Veteran-Owned SB 3% and Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB 3%. Small Business firms that are selected under the Small Business set aside must perform 50 percent of the contract performance by the prime or a similarly situated Small Business subcontractor in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-14 (Deviation 2021-O0008). If selected as the most highly qualified firm, the large business offeror will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan following FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 219.704/705 as a part of the Request for Proposal Package (RFPP). The subcontracting plan is NOT required with the SF330 submittal. The wages and benefits of service employees (FAR 22.10) performing under this contract must be at least equal to those determined by the Department of Labor under the Service Contract Act. This is a multiple award effort with the most-highly qualified firm in the Small Business group and the most-highly qualified firm in the Unrestricted group receiving their RFPPs first. Once that process is complete, the next most highly qualified firm will be provided their RFPP and so on. In accordance with 40 USC 11, Selection of Architect and Engineers, the negotiation process will continue until an agreement is reached and all contracts are awarded. PROJECT INFORMATION: A-E services shall include, but not be limited to performance of the planning, master planning, and program support; A-E investigative and design services including development of construction documents; construction support; engineering and environmental studies, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation; Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) studies; investigations and surveys in support of the Air and Army National Guard Vertical Construction Programs. Typical work may include, but is not specifically limited to: A) the preparation of plans, specifications, calculations, and cost estimates; B) preconstruction award services to include RFI responses, supplemental documents to support the bid process and providing a final conformed bid set incorporating changes; C) the development of cost management, quality control, and quality assurance standards; D) construction administration, inspection, testing, and management services; E) development of engineering standards; F) preparations for national design submissions; G) development of Installation Energy Plans, Installation Development Plans (including component plans), Area Development Plans, Installation Climate Resiliency Plans, and Mission Sustainment Risk Reports, H) technical, economic, planning, environmental, value engineering and other studies, analyses, surveys, investigations, and reports; I) development of performance criteria for bridging documents for design-build projects; J) development of documents to support various government construction programs; K) commissioning services; L) comprehensive interior design; M) data collection and condition reporting in support of future planning and engineering, to include, but not limited to: utilities, pavements, and buildings. Services may include but are not limited to, a wide variety of professional services in support of projects for administrative, industrial, and support facilities to meet the needs of the National Guard Bureau. Various projects may include services associated with National Guard Bureau installations/facilities, such as aircraft hangars, corrosion control facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities, support equipment maintenance facilities, administrative offices, supply facilities, civil engineering facilities, dormitory buildings, training site facilities, readiness centers (armory), fire stations, security forces facilities, munitions maintenance and storage facilities, communications and electronic maintenance, mobility and aerial port facilities, dining facilities, medical training facilities, roadways, military airfield pavements, site utilities, infrastructure, aircraft fuel storage and distribution systems, and other support facilities. Additionally, task orders may be issued for support services that require A-E Services as defined in FAR 2.101 SELECTION CRITERIA - The selection criteria are listed below in descending order of importance. Criteria A Professional Qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services (SF 330, Part I, Section E): The selected firm must have, either in?house or through consultants, all disciplines listed and must provide resumes in Part I, Section E, of the SF330. Each resume shall not exceed two (2) pages and should list a minimum of five (5) projects. (1) Project Manager; NOTE: the Government may give additional consideration for experience managing ANG projects (2) Architect;* (3) Civil Engineer;* (4) Structural Engineer;* NOTE: the Government may give additional consideration for seismic retrofit experience (5) Mechanical Engineer;* (6) Electrical Engineer;* (7) Fire Protection Engineer; must have NICET Level IV or FPE*; (8) Cost Estimator; must be certified by a professional organization, such as the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE), International Costs Engineering Council (ICEC), or Professional Construction Estimators Association. Certification must be at the professional level. Must have a minimum 8 years industry related experience or 4 years industry related experience + 4-year industry related college degree; (9) Geotechnical Engineer;* (10) Security/Cyber Security Specialist; the security/cyber security specialist(s) must have a bachelors degree in one of the following: computer science, information science, information systems management, mathematics, statistics, operations research, or engineering; they must have a minimum of five years' of experience in managing cybersecurity of facility-related control systems used to monitor and control equipment and systems related to DoD real property facilities (e.g., building control systems, utility control systems, electronic security systems, and fire and life safety systems. The must also have at least one of the following certifications under IAM Level II listed at https://public.cyber.mil/wid/cwmp/dod-approved-8570-baseline-certifications/ (11) Environmental Engineer* or Physical Scientist with experience in NEPA processes specializing in Soil, Sediment, Lead Based Paint (LBP) and Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) Survey and Remediation. NOTE: a Certified Industrial Hygienist or an OSHA Certified Technician with five years of experience may be submitted in lieu of a Professional Engineer. *All engineers and architects must have the following in the role they are assigned on the project team: a bachelor's degree, professional registration, and at least five years of relevant experience. If an individual will serve in more than one discipline then those disciplines shall be indicated in Block 13, PART I, Section E. Resumes (Section E of the SF 330) must be provided for all disciplines, including consultants. In the resumes use the same discipline nomenclature as is used in this announcement and place them in order of the above criteria. Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation of each discipline will consider education, registration, demonstrated experience, certifications, and longevity with the firm. Evaluation will be based on an assessment by the board of the firms ability to effectively address the professional qualifications as described above. A firm that provides resumes for key personnel with greater levels of discipline specific education, experience, and certifications as well as longevity with the firm will be considered more highly qualified than one that provides less qualified personnel, with less discipline specific education and experience as well as a shorter duration with the firm. Professional disciplines are listed in priority order based on anticipated workload and benefit to project success. Criteria B -- Specialized Experience and Technical Competence in the type of work required, including, as appropriate, experience in sustainable design, energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials (SF330, Part I, Section F): The A-E firm shall provide example projects that include the items 1-10 below. Each example project narrative shall not exceed two (2) pages. One project may address multiple items or multiple projects may address a single item. Submit no more than ten (10) projects. The narrative must be from a 100% design submittal completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of this synopsis for both the prime firm and subcontractor(s). Up to three (3) of the ten (10) projects may be from sub-consultants. A minimum of one (1) of the ten (10) projects must demonstrate experience by the prime firm performing any one of the items 1 - 5. In the instance of JVs, projects may be submitted from each partner. Where indicated, include supplemental information in narrative form in Section H. (1) Design of aircraft maintenance facilities, including the production of plans, specifications, cost estimates, and incorporation of Unified Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications; (2) Design of aircraft operations facilities i.e. squadron operations, simulators, control tower, etc. including the production of plans, specifications, cost estimates, incorporation of Unified Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications; (3) Design of entry control facilities, small arms ranges, base support facilities, etc, including the production of plans, cost estimates, and specifications and incorporation of Unified Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications; (4) Master planning and/or preparation of Government planning/programming documents (DD Form 1391s) and/or substantial contributions to those documents via reports, studies, etc.; (5) Design-build bridging documents for military, government or commercial facilities; Include supplemental information in narrative form in Section H for the below criteria (6) From the ten (10) submitted example projects above, provide five (5) design-bid-build project final cost estimates (the amount used in acquisition as the base bid estimated construction cost); compare the cost developed in design to the initial awarded construction base bid. Discuss the firms management practices used to meet FAR 52.236-22 Design Within Funding Limitations. Provide explanations for any variance greater than 10%. NOTE: Design-Build projects shall not be used to demonstrate this criterion. (7) Discuss experience in design and survey for abatement of asbestos, lead-based paint, and the handling/disposal/remediation of other toxic and regulated substances (e.g. PFOS/PFOA); (8) Discuss experience incorporating NEPA process findings and recommendations as well as preparation of documentation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 43214347; the most recent Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 15001508); 32 CFR 989, et seq., Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1015. (9) Discuss design experience incorporating Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 and Part 150, AICUZ, and UFC 3-260-01 constraints and requirements; (10) Discuss facility condition assessments experience. Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation will be based on an assessment by the board of the firms ability to effectively address the specialized experience and technical competencies as described above. A firm that more effectively addresses the required specialized experience and technical competencies will be considered more highly qualified than one that is not able to. A firm that can correlate all ten (10) experience criteria through the ten (10) submitted projects, the teams individual resume projects, along with the narrative in Section H, will be considered more highly qualified than one that does not. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence criteria listed are in priority order based on anticipated workload and benefit to project success. A Project is defined as a single, stand-alone contract and/or a single task order issued under an existing IDIQ contract. Combining multiple task orders under an IDIQ to create a single project will not be compliant with the solicitation criteria, and it will not be evaluated or considered. The contract number or IDIQ number and individual task order number associated with the project in the title must be included for each of the projects. Include the percentage of work self-performed by the prime for each contract and/or task order. If proposing as a JV, attribute the percentage of work self-performed by each JV member. Criteria C ? Capacity to accomplish multiple task orders in the required time (SF330, Part I, Section H). Firms must have the capacity to proceed with work and accomplish it promptly once a notice to proceed is issued and accomplish it prior to scheduled completion dates, including emergency response. Firms must demonstrate the ability to accomplish multiple task orders simultaneously. The evaluation will consider the prime availability of an adequate number of key personnel, equipment, and the extent of in-house facilities versus subcontracting needs. The A-E should submit evidence in the SF330 Part I, Section H, to support its capacity to accomplish work based on the following criteria: (1) Describe the quality management plan, including quality assurance process, tools, and personnel as it relates to determining team composition. (2) Describe prior experience between prime and significant sub-consultant(s); discuss process and methods used for work coordination. (3) Describe the firms overall available/excess capacity, considering current and projected workload, to accomplish multiple simultaneous ANG task orders across the United States and its territories. For firms submitting a proposal under the?Other Than Small Business?category,?demonstrate the?ability to accomplish multiple task orders (roughly equivalent to 6-9 task orders per year)?above $600K?in design costs that involve multiple concurrent disciplines, complex designs,?and unique design solutions.?For the Small Business Firms submitting a proposal?under the Small Business?category, demonstrate the ability to accomplish?multiple?task orders?(roughly equivalent to 2-4 task orders per year)?with estimated design values at?or below?$600K?that involve multiple concurrent disciplines and complex designs?in a?cost-effective, timely manner. ? (4) Illustrate the availability of the proposed project team members to manage and complete the anticipated workload as a result of a contract award from this announcement considering their existing workload. Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation will be based on an assessment by the board of the firms ability to effectively address the quality management, team experience, and availability as described above. A firm that more effectively addresses Quality Management will be considered more highly qualified than one that is not able to. A firm with a longer relationship with key sub-consultants may be considered more highly qualified than one with a shorter relationship with key sub-consultants. A firm that can effectively complete task orders utilizing the proposed team will be considered more highly qualified than one that does not. Criteria D Past Performance (SF330, Part I, Section H): Firms must provide past performance information for each project included in the SF 330 submission Part I Section F. DO NOT submit past performance for projects not included in Section F. Firms must submit the name, address, and telephone number of references. Firms may also include supporting information in the proposal, such as letters of commendation from clients, information on problems encountered, and actions taken to remedy alleged unsatisfactory performance in CPARS. Evaluation methodology: Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry regarding quality, cost control, and timeliness of work will be reviewed. Past DOD performance data, available to the Government through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), will be evaluated. Credible, documented information on past performance will be considered, except for adverse performance information to which the firm has not had an opportunity to respond. Evaluation will be based on an assessment by the board considering the recent and relevant ratings of past performance evaluations submitted in this proposal or from available databases. In the event of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Less recent ratings (more than ten years), poor ratings, and/or failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers may result in lower ratings. Criteria E Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project areas within the Multi-Region area (SF330, Part I, Section H). All contract work is to be performed within the States of MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA, DE, The District of Columbia (DC), MD, VA, WV, FL, GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, IN, KY, TN, AR, MO, IA, IL, MN, WI, ND, SD, ID, MT, WY, KS, LA, OK, TX, NE, AZ, CO, NM, UT, CA, NV, OR, WA, and The Territory of Guam. (1) In SF330 Part I, Section H, describe and demonstrate the teams familiarity with design requirements applicable to these locations. (2) Submit information addressing your methodology for obtaining knowledge of hydrology, soil conditions, seismic conditions, weather conditions, state/local building codes, and construction industry standards. (3) Describe measures you take to adapt standard design details to local industry/construction trades standard practice. Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation will be based on an assessment by the board of the firms ability to effectively address the knowledge of locality as described above. A firm and its key sub-consultants that more effectively addresses knowledge of locality will be considered more highly qualified than one that is not able to. Criteria F Secondary Criteria THE FOLLOWING SECONDARY CRITERIA WILL BE USED AS A TIEBREAKER, IF NECESSARY: The firm shall provide all data for these secondary criteria on Part I, Section H, of the SF330. 1. Volume of Past DOD Contracts awarded to the firm during the previous 12 months: Offerors shall provide the volume of work awarded by DOD agencies during the previous 12 months. The volume of work shall be demonstrated in a table format and be categorized by contract, task order, project award, completion dates, and design fee dollar amount. Work previously awarded to the firm by DOD will be reviewed to affect an equitable distribution of contracts among equally qualified firms. Data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) may be also utilized by the Government. 2. Superior Performance Evaluations on recently completed DoD contracts. Performance with ratings of exceptional will be considered as Superior Performance Evaluations. 3. The extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to small business and to small disadvantaged business (SDB) where the NAICS Industry Subsector of the subcontracted effort is one in which use of an evaluation factor or subfactor for participation of SDB concerns is authorized (see FAR 19.201(b)), and to historically black college or university and minority institution performance as subcontractors. The extent of commitment shall comply with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8. Offerors demonstrating a greater commitment to small business participation will be evaluated more favorably under this criterion. 4. Geographic Proximity within the locations for the Multi-Region area: Firms based in or having branch offices in the states of MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA, DE, The District of Columbia (DC), MD, VA, WV, FL, GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, IN, KY, TN, AR, MO, IA, IL, MN, WI, ND, SD, ID, MT, WY, KS, LA, OK, TX, NE, AZ, CO, NM, UT, CA, NV, OR, WA, and The Territory of Guam with core disciplines (full-service) including architects, and mechanical, civil, electrical, and structural engineers working in the same office or within a proximity of fewer than 50 miles from the states within this region will be considered as meeting the requirement for geographical proximity. CRITERIA RATINGS: Technical criteria described above (A, B, C, E, and F) will be assigned one of the following adjectival ratings: BLUE (Outstanding) SF330 proposal significantly exceeds qualification requirements, demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. PURPLE (Good) SF330 Proposal exceeds qualification requirements, demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. GREEN (Acceptable) SF330 proposal meets qualification requirements, demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. YELLOW (Marginal) SF330 proposal does not meet all qualification requirements, has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. RED (Unacceptable) SF330 proposal does not meet qualification requirements of the synopsis and thus contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high. The following adjectival relevance and performance confidence ratings will be used to evaluate the Past Performance criteria (D): Relevance Ratings 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 compl...