A23 - HR001125R0003 MANNUS Attachment S02 - 2025-03-21.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Request for Quote: HR001125R0003

Managed Enterprise Network Support Services (MANNUS)

Contractor/rater information is to be completed by the offeror and provided to the reference/rater with instructions to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the government contact identified below.

Contractor/Rater Information:

Contractor for whom reference is provided:

Contract number:

Contract name/title:

Short Description of Contract Scope:

Rater:

Rater’s organization:

Rater’s telephone:

Rater’s e-mail address:

Rater’s role in relation to the contract (e.g., program/project manager (PM/PjM), contracting officer (CO/KO), major end user, etc.):

Rating Definitions: See table on the next page.

Request for Quote: HR001124R0008

Rating Definition Note

Exceptional Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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.

Identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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 were effective.

Identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the government. No significant weaknesses should have been identified.

Satisfactory Performance met 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 appeared to be or were satisfactory.

There should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. No significant weaknesses should have been 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/order.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the organization. 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 did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the organization. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits an “unsatisfactory” rating. This 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 report or letter).

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE

QUESTIONNAIRE Request for Quote:

HR001125R0003

Index:

• Section I – Ratings

• Section II – Additional Narrative Justification

• Section III – Signature of Rater

Instructions to Rater:

Please provide relevant information to support the ratings given. Do not enter information using a colored font, as they do not show well if the document is printed. To emphasize information, use bold, underline, or increase the font size.

Please return the completed questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer at DARPA_ITD_IDIQ@darpa.mil before the closing date of this RFQ. Any questions regarding this questionnaire should be directed to the Contracting Officer at DARPA_ITD_IDIQ@darpa.mil before the closing date of this RFQ.

mailto:DARPA_ITD_VAR@darpa.mil mailto:DARPA_ITD_VAR@darpa.mil

QUESTIONNAIRE Request for Quote:

HR001125R0003

Section I – Ratings Rater’s Response

(Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory)

1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided? Please include supporting narrative:

2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to respond in a timely manner to requests such as requests for quotes for modifications and/or questions about their products or services? Please include supporting narrative:

3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the products/services delivered? Please include supporting narrative:

Request for Quote: HR001124R0008

4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements? Please include supporting narrative:

5. How would you rate the contractor’s overall program management and customer engagement? Please include supporting narrative:

6. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?

QUESTIONNAIRE Request for Quote:

HR001125R0003

Section II – Additional Narrative Justification

Additional supporting narrative, if required:

Section III – Signature of Rater

Signature of rater:

Date: