EXIM Contractor Past Perf Eval.pdf

Attachment

CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DOCUMENT

Name of Evaluator(s):

Evaluator’s Agency:

Evaluator’s Phone No(s):

Evaluator’s Email:

Contract Number/Title:

Evaluator’s Association with Contract (e.g., Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative):

Offer Evaluated:

RATINGS

Using the rating guidelines on the last page of this Contractor Past Performance Evaluation Document, circle the appropriate number (either 0 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Marginal), 2 (Satisfactory), 3 (Very Good), 4 (Exceptional)) which corresponds to the rating that best summarizes the Contractor’s performance under the above-referenced contract for each rating category below. Please limit comments to 2000 characters or less.

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE Rating: 0 1 2 3 4

Comments on Strengths and Weaknesses:

TIMELINESS OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE Rating: 0 1 2 3 4

BUSINESS RELATIONS Rating: 0 1 2 3 4

SUBCONTRACTS

Are subcontracts involved in the above-referenced contract? YES NO (Circle one)

Comments (Please comment on those subcontractors that have provided a significant contribution to overall contract performance under the above-referenced contract.)

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Is/was the Contractor committed to customer satisfaction? YES NO (Circle one)

Comments:

Would you recommend that EXIM Bank select this Contractor? YES NO (Circle one)

Comments:

Rating: 0 1 2 3 4 OVERALL RATING OF CONTRACTOR (Includes Comments on Customer Satisfaction)

RATING GUIDELINES

RATING

DEFINITION

0 - 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 contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

- Are there multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and impacted the Government?

- Was there a singular problem, of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating?

1 - Marginal 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.

- Was there a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and impacted the Government?

2 - Satisfactory 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.

- Were there only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order.

- There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

- Contractors should not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

3 – Very Good 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 was effective.

- Was there a significant event that was a benefit to the Government?

- There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

4 – Exceptional 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.

- Were there multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government?

- Was there a singular benefit that was of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating?

- There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.