Attachment No. 7 _ 31310020R0006 Past Performance Survey.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 31310020R0006
- Issued by
-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
SUBJECT: PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE SURVEY IN RESPONSE TO NRC SOLICITATION 31310020R0006 ENTITLED " TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF NRC’s REACTOR LICENSING”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently conducting proposal evaluations seeking technical assistance from a contractor to support the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory in a wide range of technical and scientific disciplines such as: licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of commercial nuclear power facilities and commercial and non-commercial non-power production and utilization facilities (NPUFs). The activities for nuclear power reactors and NPUFs may include the following: reviews of applications for reactor design certifications (DCs); early site permits (ESPs); combined license (COL) applications; reactor licensing pre-application activities; limited work authorizations (LWAs); construction permits (CPs); operating licenses (OLs); license actions (i.e., amendments, facility operating license renewals, relief requests, and exemptions); oversight; and staff infrastructure development.
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 the address below, or email to Margo.Katzper@nrc.gov , no later than 2:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time (EST), on May 28, 2020.
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
| Acquisition Management Division |
| ATTN: Mr. Jeffrey R. Mitchell |
| Washington, D.C. 20555 |
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me on (301) 415-5074.
| Sincerely, |
| /s/ |
| Mr. Jeffrey R. Mitchell Contracting Officer |
| Acquisition Management Division |
| Office of Administration |
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: _____________________
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.
31310020R0006
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEYS
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
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .