DEP.BWSC.RFR.2024.ERIRASS.FormD2.Past.Perform.Instruct.6.6.24.pdf

Form D-2 Page 1

DEPARTMENT FORM D-2

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - INSTRUCTIONS

DEP-BWSC-RFR-2025-ER/IRASS-MSA

Ratings and Performance Categories

The firm, _________________________________, herein referred to as the "Bidder" is preparing a Statement of Qualifications in response to a Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) "Request for Response" (RFR) as part of a public procurement for an Emergency Response/Immediate Response Action Support Services (ER/IRASS) contract. The Bidder has selected your firm to provide an evaluation of their performance using the D-1 Form questionnaire associated with these instructions. Please take the time to complete the questionnaire as honestly and as fairly as possible and return the completed form directly to the Bidder PRIOR to the deadline for the Bidder’s electronic submission of Form D-1 as part of the Quote Package RFR Response (ask Bidder about the deadline).

In its discretion, the MassDEP SSST reserves the right to contact any or all client references (by telephone and/or email) as part of its review, evaluation and scoring of the RFR Response submissions to further verify/discuss any bidder’s qualifications and expertise to perform the selected scope of services categories that are specified in the MIWOSPRS solicitation.

The Bidder and the Commonwealth thank you in advance for your prompt response. A failure of the Department to receive a timely response from you will result in the Bidder receiving a score of zero (0) for this reference.

The Bidder shall be evaluated based on the following ratings and performance categories:

Ratings: 0 = unsatisfactory 1 = poor 2 = fair 3 = good 4 = excellent 5 = outstanding

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE: Considerations for performance categories

Unsatisfactory: Non-conformances jeopardized the achievement of the agreed to and expected quality requirements, despite use/availability of client resources. Recovery was not likely to occur. If performance could not be substantially corrected, this constituted a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements.

Poor: Overall compliance required significant client resources to ensure achievement of the agreed to and expected quality requirements.

Fair: Overall compliance required minor client resources to ensure achievement of the agreed to and expected quality requirements.

Good: There were no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Bidder met the quality requirements.

Excellent: There were no quality issues, and the Bidder substantially exceeded the agreed to and expected quality requirements without commensurate additional costs to the client.

Outstanding: The Bidder demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that Evaluator is justified adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where Bidder performance clearly exceeded the performance levels described as "Excellent".

Form D-2 Page 2

COST CONTROL

Unsatisfactory: Bidder’s inability to manage and control costs jeopardized performance of contract requirements.

Recovery was not likely to occur. If performance could not be substantially corrected, this inability to manage cost issues constituted a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor: Bidder’s inability to effectively manage and control costs required significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract cost requirements.

Fair: Bidder’s ability to manage and control cost issues required minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract cost requirements.

Good: There were no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Bidder met the contract cost requirements.

Excellent: There were no cost management issues and the Bidder exceeded the contract cost requirements, achieving cost savings to the client.

Outstanding: The Bidder demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the Bidder achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent”.

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

Unsatisfactory: The Bidder’s delays and/or missed deadlines and/or milestones jeopardized the achievement of contract requirements, despite use/availability of client resources. Recovery was not likely to occur. If performance could not be substantially corrected, this constituted a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor: The Bidder’s delays and/or missed deadlines and/or milestones required significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair: The Bidder’s delays and/or missed deadlines and/or milestones required minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good: There were no, or minimal, delays and/or missed deadlines and/or milestones on the part of the Bidder that impacted achievement of contract requirements.

Excellent: There were no delays and/or missed deadlines and/or milestones on the part of the Bidder, and the Bidder exceeded the contractually agreed upon time schedule.

Outstanding: The Bidder demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where The Bidder’s performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".

BUSINESS RELATIONS

Unsatisfactory: The Bidder’s responses to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues were ineffective, or there was a significant lack of quality communication. If not substantially mitigated or corrected this constituted a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor: The Bidder’s responses to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues were marginally effective, or communication were marginally effective and definitely needs improvement.

Form D-2 Page 3

Fair: The Bidder’s responses to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues were somewhat effective and the quality of communication could be improved.

Good: The Bidder’s responses to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues were consistently effective, and communication was of good quality.

Excellent: The Bidder’s responses to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeded the client's expectations and communication was consistently effective and of high quality.

Outstanding: The Bidder demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score.

It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the Bidder’s performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."