Attachment_2_EXIM_Contractor_Past_Perf_Eval_Doc1.pdf

Attachment 2

CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DOCUMENT

Name of Evaluator(s):

Evaluator’s Phone No(s).:

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 (Unacceptable), 1 (Acceptable), 2 (Good), 3 (Outstanding)) 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

Comments on Strengths and Weaknesses:

TIMELINESS OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE Rating: 0 1 2 3

BUSINESS RELATIONS Rating: 0 1 2 3

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 Ex-Im Bank select this Contractor? YES NO (Circle one)

Comments:

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

RATING GUIDELINES

Criterion:

- Considerations:

Quality of Product or Service

- Compliance with contract requirements

- Accuracy of reports

- Effectiveness of personnel

- Technical excellence

Timeliness of Performance

- Met interim milestones

- Reliability

- Responsive to technical direction

- Completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration

- Met delivery schedules

- No liquidated damages assessed

Business Relations

- Effective management, including subcontracts

- Reasonable/cooperative behavior

- Responsive to contract requirements

- Notification of problems

- Flexibility

- Pro-active vs. Reactive

- Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program

0 - Unacceptable

Nonconformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources

Delays are jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources

Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is not effective

1 - Acceptable

Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements

Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective

2 - Good

Overall compliance does not impact achievement of contract

Delays do not impact achievement of contract technical/service/administrative issues is usually effective

3 - Outstanding

The Contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level in any of the above four categories that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances when Contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as “Good”