70RDAD23R00000011 Attachment J.3 (Past Performance Substitute Form).docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EAP and Work-Life Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 70RDAD23R00000011
- Issued by
- Not on record
About this file
This document is a past performance evaluation template for a solicitation seeking EAP and Work-Life support services. The solicitation is number 70RDAD23R00000011 and is being conducted by an unspecified agency. Offerors are required to provide references from prior customers using the template, which will be used to evaluate their past performance. The template includes sections for general offeror information, evaluation factor ratings in areas such as technical quality of services and small business subcontracting, and factor narratives. Ratings are on an adjective scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. The opportunity type is listed as a solicitation but no further details are provided on response dates, award timing, or pricing terms.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
The below company is considering responding to a solicitation to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and Work-Life support services. The company has identified you as a prior or current customer who has or is receiving Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and Work-Life support services.
This form will assist the Government in evaluating the company’s past performance. This form shall only be used for non-federal contract awards or federal contract awards that do not have past performance information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
The Assessing Official shall be an individual who has knowledge of the contract award and is authorized to provide such an assessment of the Offeror’s performance.
The Government will use this information, including the ratings and narratives, for source selection purposes and will not disclose any information to anyone outside acquisition team.
If you have any questions, please contact the Contracting Officer, Bjorn Miller, at bjorn.miller@hq.dhs.gov and the Contract Specialist, Karen Ma, at karen.ma@hq.dhs.gov.
The Assessing Official should submit the completed and signed form directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.
B. COMPANY INFORMATION (OFFEROR TO COMPLETE)
1. COMPANY NAME:
2. UEI NUMBER:
3. COMPANY ADDRESS:
4. CONTRACT AWARD NUMBER:
C. EVALUATION AREAS (ASSESSING OFFICIAL TO COMPLETE)
The Assessing Official shall rate each of the six Evaluation Areas, as applicable, using the following adjectival ratings and their definitions:
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 70RDAD23R00000011
ATTACHMENT J.3 (PAST PERFORMANCE SUBSTITUTE FORM)
The following Adjectival Ratings and Definitions apply to Technical (Quality of Services), Cost Control, Schedule/Timeliness, Regulatory Compliance, and Management or Business Relations:
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/Customer’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/Customer. 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. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Customer’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/Customer. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated contained 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 award. 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 award. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated contained 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). |
| 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 being evaluated contained serious problem(s) for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor 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). |
| N/A |
| Shall be used if the aforementioned ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation. |
The following Adjectival Ratings and Definitions apply to Small Business Subcontracting:
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| Exceptional |
| Exceeded all statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good |
| Met all of the statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to small business utilization. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative opportunities to participate as subcontractors for work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory |
| Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/order. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal |
| Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period. |
| To justify a Marginal rating, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Had a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization. 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 actions taken by the Government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan. |
| N/A |
| Shall be used if the aforementioned ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation. |
D. EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS
As a reminder, the Assessing Official should refer back to the aforementioned definitions and notes for each evaluation factor. The Assessing Official can select a rating from the drop-down menu next to each evaluation factor.
1. TECHNICAL (QUALITY OF SERVICES) RATING: Choose an item.
2. COST CONTROL RATING: Choose an item.
3. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS RATING: Choose an item.
4. MANAGEMENT OR BUSINESS RELATIONS RATING: Choose an item.
5. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE RATING: Choose an item.
6. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING RATING: Choose an item.
E. EVALUATION FACTOR NARRATIVES
The Assessing Official should include a narrative for each of the evaluation factors explaining how they arrived at their decision and what factors attributed to the overall rating. Assessing Officials are encouraged to include any information they determine will assist the Government in evaluating the company’s past performance.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .