Say there is a solicitation. The basis of award is best value (Tradeoff). Past Performance is one of the non-price factors. The solicitation says the following in Section M for the Past Performance Factor:

The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence rating should the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ past and present performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture partner’s three contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed consecutively and/or simultaneously (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of work and complexities and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment rating for the entire team.

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described below will be assigned to the Past and Present Performance factor.

I have never heard of "aggregating" as it is explained above. Can anyone shed light on this?

Reads to me as though they are willing to treat several smaller projects as one large project. If a contractor was cleaning two smaller schools at the same time, it looks like the Section M is saying it will consider that to be the contractor performing one job as large as both jobs combined. That paragraph also seems to confirm the Government will do something similar for projects one after the other.

I can imagine the former situation being reasonable, given that all other aspects would be equal (since it demonstrates the contractor has sufficient resources to take on a project of similar magnitude as two or more projects). The second seems less reasonable to me (given any generic requirement) since my ability to clean one house for two years doesn't really translate into me being able to clean two houses in one year, but again, I have no idea what they are buying.

I think it is simply saying they are going to rank a large contract of a JV partner, higher than 3 little ones. They consider that "more complex" than having small stand alone contracts. I frankly could argue the opposite - having several smaller contracts that are performed under substantially different scopes of work, different price schedules, billing, accounting, administration, etc..and performing well, would have high merit also. "volume" does not always define "complexity"