The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 3.104
ATTACHMENT F
Department of State Data Analytics Support Services Present and Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire
The Department of State (DOS), Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R), Office of Policy Planning and Resources (PPR) located at 2200 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 (SA-5) supports various DOS public diplomacy (PD) efforts, and intends to support PD efforts involving data analytics: the science of using statistical and social scientific methods to discern from data sets meaningful insights into audience behavior and information environments.
In particular, R/PPR intends to provision DOS with Data Analytics deliverables to be used for PD purposes, which can be categorized into eight (8) Data Analytics Project Groups that includes audience research, digital message testing, marketing and strategic planning, and consultation; professional services and/or technology that DOS can use to generate data analytics; and various other deliverables directly related to data analytics.
An Offeror has identified you as a reference to provide past or recent performance information about a specific contract that provided some or all of these types of requirements. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire electronically and return it no later than July 22, 2022 to Reece Fitzgibbon (FitzgibbonME@State.gov) and Bob Namejko (Namejkorb@state.gov).
Thank you for your assistance.
Maurice E. Fitzgibbon, Contracting Officer FitzgibbonME@State.gov
Performance Assessment Ratings:
Please use the ratings below to assess the contractor’s performance.
Performance Confidence Assessments
| High Confidence (H) |
| There is high confidence that the contractor performance meets all contractual requirements and exceeds many of them. The contractor had few minor problems for which it took corrective actions that effectively resolved the problem and was successful in performing the work. |
| Moderate Confidence (M) |
| There is moderate confidence that the contractor performance meets contractual requirements. The contractor had some minor problems for which it took corrective actions that satisfactorily resolved the problem and was satisfactory in performing the work. |
| Low Confidence (L) |
| There is low confidence that the contractor performance meets contractual requirements. The contractor encountered serious problems for which the corrective actions we marginally effective or ineffective and was unsuccessful in performing the work. |
| Not Applicable (N/A) |
| Unable to provide a score – Performance in this area was not applicable to the project assessed. |
***Do not return this questionnaire to the contractor*** (Return to: Reece Fitzgibbon (FitzgibbonME@State.gov) and Bob Namejko (Namejkorb@state.gov) Please provide the information requested below. Please enter the letter rating (H, M, L, or N/A) for each question in the “Rating” column and provide additional context or commentary regarding performance in the “Explanation” column. Rows will expand to accept all information typed. If you have any questions, please contact the Contracting Officer.
NOTE: For any adverse rating (Low Confidence (L)), the rater should explain the events that took place and explain why corrective action did not resolve the problem. Please do not adversely rate the contractor if the Government was at fault.
1. Contract Information (Offeror may fill this out in prior to sending to the contact)
| 1.2 |
| Contractor’s Program Manager Name |
| 1.4 |
| Agency/Client Address |
| 1.6 |
| Agency/Client Program Manager Name and Contact Information (phone and e-mail) |
| Name: |
Phone:
E-mail
| 1.10 |
| Period of Performance |
| 1.11 |
| Contract Status – Active or Complete |
· Contracting Officer (CO):
· Contracting Officer Representative (COR):
CO name, phone & email:
COR name, phone & email:
| 1.14 |
| Program Description – please include the benefits of the program |
| 1.15 |
| Relationship – Prime or Sub & Percentage of work |
2. Technical
| Topic Area |
| Rating |
| Explanation |
| 2.1 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to maintain application environments and perform database administration? |
| 2.2 |
| How would you rate the reliability and overall quality of the applications developed by the contractor? |
| 2.3 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to provide operations and maintenance support for a large suite of applications? |
| 2.4 |
| How would you rate the effectiveness of the contractor’s system implementation processes and procedures? |
| 2.5 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to provide effective help desk and customer support? |
| 2.6 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to provide innovative solutions to your IT challenges? |
| 2.7 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s use of Agile or scrum methodology if it was utilized? |
| 2.8 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in implementing DevSecOps methodology (if applicable)? |
| 2.9 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in supporting cloud migration? Please specify if contractor utilized Amazon Web Services cloud operations or another provider. |
| 2.10 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in supporting cloud operations and maintenance? Please specify if contractor utilized Amazon Web Services cloud operations or another provider. |
| 2.11 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to use predictive analytics and AI/ML to effectively derive analytical insights from datasets, “tell a story” using the data, and solve client problems? |
| 2.12 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to ensure ongoing innovation, introduction of new products and services, and integration of industry best practices? |
| 2.12 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in supporting Accreditation and Authorization (A&A) tasks? |
| 2.13 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to be proactive vs. reactive in identifying potential cybersecurity vulnerability, such as impending End of Life issues and recent supply chain hacks? |
| 2.14 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s responsiveness to breaking cybersecurity news (e.g., exploitation of insecurely designed cloud enclaves, supply chain hacks, enhancements in ransomware) |
3. Management
| Topic Area |
| Rating |
| Explanation |
| 3.1 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to manage the entire program and keep you informed of status? |
| 3.2 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to deliver products and reach milestones on schedule? |
| 3.3 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to identify, evaluate, and manage project risks? |
| 3.4 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to manage project scope and requests for change? |
| 3.5 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to manage its sub-contractors, partners, and suppliers? |
| 3.6 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to ensure sufficient resources were available to perform the scheduled work? |
| 3.7 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control and manage costs effectively? |
| 3.8 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to retain high performing personnel for staffing stability? |
| 3.9 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in shifting from an on-site delivery model to a predominantly virtual environment during the onset of COVID-19 (if applicable)? |
| 3.10 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to manage project priorities? |
4. Quality
| Topic Area |
| Rating |
| Explanation |
| 4.1 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to deliver products and services that meet the agreed upon standards for quality or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established in your contract? |
| 4.2 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to identify and resolve problems? |
| 4.3 |
| How would you rate the effectiveness of the contractor’s billing process to ensure you receive accurate bills for products and services on a timely basis? |
5. Customer Satisfaction
| Topic Area |
| Rating |
| Explanation |
| 5.1 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively engage with customers to thoroughly and accurately understand objectives and desired outcomes? |
| 5.2 |
| How would you rate the contractor’s ability to provide a high level of communication, customer service and collaboration with customers to achieve their objectives? |
| 5.3 |
| How well did the contractor’s employees and subcontractors conduct themselves in a professional and business-like manner? |
6. General
| 6.1 |
| What were the contractor’s strengths? |
| 6.2 |
| What were the contractor’s weaknesses? |
| 6.3 |
| If you had the opportunity would you use this contractor again? |
| 6.4 |
| If so, is there anything that you would change about how you managed them? |
| 6.5 |
| Other comments – Please provide any other comments applicable to the contractor’s performance on your project. |
ECA EX/IT Past Performance QuestionnaireSBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS
