ATTACHMENT_3_Past_Performance_Survey.rtf

Attachment No. 3

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

SUBJECT: PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE SURVEY IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 31310018R0020, ENTITLED “Industrial Radiography Training”

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently conducting proposal evaluations for a contract to provide the NRC with development, update and presentation of a training course entitled, “Industrial Radiography.

Our primary source of information for this part of the evaluation will come from the past performance references that the offeror has provided us. The NRC evaluation panel must ensure that the offeror has both relevant and successful past performance in performing work of a comparable nature and complexity to the NRC’s requirement.

Accordingly, we ask that you complete the enclosed past performance survey and return it directly to Aracelis.Perez-Ortiz@nrc.gov no later than May 17, 5:00 PM EST.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (301) 415-0085.

Sincerely,

Enclosure: Past Performance Questionnaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

COVER SHEET

Name of offeror questionnaire is being completed for: _________________________________

Name of agency/company completing questionnaire:

Contract Number: _____________________________________________________________

Name, title of person completing questionnaire: _____________________________________

Address: ___________________________

Telephone No.: ______________________

Email Address: ______________________

Length of time your organization has been involved with the offeror: _____________________

THE COMPLETED PAST PERFORMANCE COVER SHEET AND PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET

RATING SCALE

Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “NA”.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Excellent - The offeror’s performance was consistently superior. The contractual performance was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Good - The offeror’s performance was better than average, and you would willingly do business with the offeror again. The contractual performance was accomplished with minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Neutral - No record exists.

Average - The offeror’s performance was satisfactory and consideration would take part in awarding a contract to the offeror again. The contractual performance reflects a problem for which the contractor has not yet implemented corrective actions.

Poor - The offeror’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and you would not do business with the offeror again under any circumstances. The contractual performance being assessed contains problems for which the contractor‘s corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Poor”, please provide a brief explanation in the comments section of the survey.

NRC-HQ-13-R-42-0157

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

POOR

AVERAGE

NEUTRAL

GOOD

EXCELLENT

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.

(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.

COST CONTROL:

(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.

(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.

(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.

SCHEDULE:

(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.

(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.

BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:

(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.

(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.

(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.

(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.

(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.

(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.

(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(1) The products/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.

(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.

(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS