1131PL27R0001 - Attach 1 Past Performance Survey.docx

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

Solicitation Number: 1131PL27R0001

The person completing this Past Performance Survey should Submit Completed Survey to USTDA’s Office of Acquisition Management at Contractproposals@ustda.gov, no later than November 6, 2026, at 12 Noon Arlington, VA Time. Please do not return to the contractor being evaluated.

Name of Contractor Being Reviewed:

Contract Number/Reference Information:

Name of Agency/Organization Submitting Review for this Contractor:

Total Contract Value: $XXXX.XX

Contract Performance Information

EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROPOSED RATINGS

For each section, please indicate your rating followed by a narrative to support of your rating. Please see last page for Evaluation Ratings and Definitions.

1. Quality – Choose an item.

Things to Consider: Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract/task order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship. Include, as applicable, information on the following:

· Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract/task order?

· Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards?

· What degree of technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

Supporting Narrative:

2. Schedule – Choose an item.

Things to Consider: Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract/task orders milestones or delivery schedules. This evaluation of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., report reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Questions to consider include the following:

· Did the contractor complete the required activities in a timely manner?

· Has the contractor furnished updated project schedules on a timely basis?

· Has the contractor met administrative milestone dates?

· Has the contractor met milestone dates specified by contract or agreed to in the projected schedule?

· Has the contractor furnished required deliverables on or ahead of schedule?

· If the schedule has slipped through the contractor’s fault or negligence, has the contractor taken appropriate corrective action of his own volition?

Supporting Narrative:

3. Cost Control – Choose an item.

Things to Consider: Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/task order cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts/task orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources, in each work effort should be assessed. Include, as applicable, the following information:

· Did the contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)?

· Did the contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings?

· Were billings current, accurate and complete?

· Has the contractor notified the Government and taken necessary corrective actions when the cost estimate exceeds available funds?

4. Management – Choose an item.

Things to Consider: Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/task order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable, cooperative, and professional behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, and management of subcontracts. Include, as applicable, information on the following:

· Is the contractor customer-oriented?

· Is interaction between the contractor and the government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

· Is the contractor exhibiting the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize and otherwise manage the requirements of this contract? If not, describe and relate to other rated elements.

· Assess the prime contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team.

· Consider efforts taken to ensure prompt subcontractor payment

· If the contract is set aside for small business, assess the contractor’s compliance with any limitations on subcontracting

5. Any Other Comments:

Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition Note

Past Performance Survey Page 4 of 5

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).