Attachment_L-1_Past_Performance_Survey.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

FROM: NSF, Division of Acquisition & Cooperative Support (DACS)

TO: Whom it may concern

SUBJECT: NSF Solicitation No.49100419R1001, Arctic Research Support and Logistics Services

DATE:

Your current or former contractor is submitting an offer to provide services to the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency. As part of the Foundation’s evaluation process, the prospective contractor’s past performance is reviewed and scored.

Please complete the survey below to help assess this contractor’s performance under any contracts or task orders performed for you within the last three years. Definitions of Rating Guidelines and Performance Elements are included for your use in completing the survey form. Please email your completed survey to joscloft@nsf.gov. If you have any questions, please call Joe Cloft at 703-292-8094.

Thank you.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

Contractor’s Name/Location:

Contract #:

Dates of Service/Contract Term: Agency:

Description of Services Provided:

PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS RATINGS

Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Quality of Product or service

Timeliness

Knowledge level of workers

Supervision during performance

Dependability of workers

Cost Control

Business Relations

Customer Satisfaction

Comment:

Signature Name/Title Phone Date

Agency/Company/Organization

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

2415 Eisenhower Avenue ▪ Alexandria, VA 22314

Page 2. Contractor Performance Evaluation Survey

RATING GUIDELINES

Grade Definition

Excellent

Performance is outstanding in most respects, approaching the best that could be performed by a qualified contractor. The contractor has greatly exceeded quality, schedule, output, and overall performance that would be expected of a qualified contractor. Areas requiring improvement are very few and relatively unimportant.

Contractor shows initiative in performing work and implementing improvements.

Very Good

Performance is substantially better than average. Contractor has met all needs and improved upon quality and schedules. Contractor has exceeded performance of an average contractor. Areas requiring improvement are relatively few, and are more than offset by areas of above average or excellent performance.

Satisfactory

Performance is adequate overall. Contractor has met needs, schedules, and expectations in a fashion that corresponds to standard performance by a qualified contractor. Areas requiring improvement are relatively minor and are offset by areas of above standard performance.

Marginal

Performance is below the standard expected of a qualified contractor. Contractor needs to improve in a significant number of areas. Performance in other areas is generally average, with few or no areas of above standard performance.

Unsatisfactory Performance is generally below average and needs improvement in a substantial number of work areas.

PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

Element Characteristics

Quality of Service Did contractor comply with requirements, exhibit reasonable/cooperative behavior, and/or recommend effective solutions to contract issues

Timeliness of Performance

Did contractor consistently meet deadlines without extraordinary assistance from the client; was contract administration completed in timely manner

Knowledge Level of Workers

Were contractor’s employees trained, qualified for their positions, able to accomplish assignments independently and without assistance from supervisors

Supervision during Performance

Was contractor able to accomplish contract requirements independently and without client’s assistance

Dependability of Workers

Were contractor’s employees punctual, reliable, courteous; was there abnormal employee turnover

Cost Control

Did permanent cost savings accrue to the client due to operational improvements;

was work accomplished within established budgets, were attempts made to control extra cost items, were proposed costs/prices for changed conditions reasonable; were invoices accurate and complete

Business Relations Was contractor effective, responsive and proactive during contract performance;

was offeror reasonable/cooperative during negotiations

Customer Satisfaction

Were you satisfied with performance; did contractor exhibit a businesslike concern for your agency’s interests; would you continue to do business with the contractor if you had the opportunity.