Revision 2 to Attachment 10 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

RFP No.: 15JPSS26R00000037

The Offeror shall complete items 1 through 22 of each form (colored yellow below). The remaining items 23 through 28 shall be completed by the Customer POC and the completed form shall be submitted to christina.murray@usdoj.gov and ciera.richardson@usdoj.gov no later than June 1, 2026 (10:00am EST). Provide a separate form for each contract or order.

SECTION A: Items to be Completed by Offeror

SECTION B: Items to be Completed by Customer POC Please use the following ratings for evaluation of the contractor’s performance for questions 23 through 31. Ratings: Exceptional (E), Very Good (VG), Satisfactory (S), Marginal (M), and Unsatisfactory (U). Definitions: Refer to FAR 42.1503.

Please include a brief explanation for all ratings assigned.

Rating Definitions

E: 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. 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.

VG: 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 were effective. 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.

S: 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. 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.

M: 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. 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).

U: 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 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).

TECHNICAL: Overall contractor performance against the technical quality requirements.

Rating Assigned: E VG S M U Explanation for Rating (refer to Definitions, above):

The contractor responded positively and promptly to technical direction and/or technical revisions to their work.

Yes or No Please briefly explain:

The contractor provided knowledgeable, experienced personnel for meeting contract requirements.

The contractor provided high quality deliverables that met or exceeded specifications of the contract/order and that were accurate and complete, technically:

SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS: Overall contractor performance against the schedule/timeliness requirements.

The contractor completed work on time.

The contractor provided deliverables on time.

There were minimal, if any, invoicing issues. If there were issues, the contractor timely and accurately addressed them.

The contractor identified and timely on-boarded staff to meet the requirements of all tasks and/or to address staff turnover.

Continuation, if needed: