F15PS00279_Attach_7-Past_Perf_Rating_Quest.doc

Solicitation No. F15PS00279 Landscape Architect-Engineering Services IDIQ Contracts for USFWS

Attachment No 7 Past Performance Rating Questionnaire

Title: New Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts regarding Multiple-Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Landscape Architect-Engineering Services throughout the Pacific Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the states of WA, OR, ID, HI and trust territories of the Pacific Islands.

OFFEROR WILL SEND THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO CLIENTS, WHO IN TURN WILL COMPLETE AND SEND DIRECTLY TO THE ADDRESS BELOW. COMPLETED FORMS FROM CLIENTS THAT ARE RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFEROR WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED, AS WELL AS FORMS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE/TIME OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. UP TO THE FIRST THREE (3) FORMS RECEIVED WILL BE CONSIDERED.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

Attn: Karl Lautzenheiser, Contract Specialist

Phone: (503) 231- 2052 Fax: (503) 231-6259 or (503) 231-2333

Email: Karl_Lautzenheiser@fws.gov Procurement-Sensitive Source Selection Document. (See FAR 1.304)

Page 1 of 5 Pages

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

Name of Offeror:

Client/Contract Information (Supplied by offeror)

Name of Client:

Contract Number:

Contract Title:

Contract Value:

Type of Contract:

Period of Performance:

The ratings below are supplied by the contractor identified above, NOT the offeror.

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Outstanding

1. Quality of Product or Service

2. Cost Control

3. Timeliness of Performance

4. Business Relations

5. Remarks on outstanding performance:

Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed.

6. Remarks on unsatisfactory performance:

Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed.

Procurement-Sensitive Source Selection Document. (See FAR 1.304)

Page 2 of 5 Pages

7. Please identify any corporate affiliations with the offeror.

8. Other comments that you wish to make:

9. Would you do business with again?

(insert offeror’s name)

10. Questionnaire completed by:

Name:

Title:

Mailing Address (Street and P.O. Box):

City, State and Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

Fax Number:

Date Information provided:

Procurement-Sensitive Source Document. (See FAR 1.304

Page 3 of 5 Pages

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Ratings and Performance Categories

The offeror 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

Unsatisfactory: Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements.

Poor: Overall compliance requires significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good: There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the offeror has met the contract requirements.

Excellent: There are no quality issues, and the offeror has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the client.

Outstanding: The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as “Excellent”.

Cost Control

Unsatisfactory: Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor: Ability to manage cost issues requires significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair: Ability to control cost issues requires minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good: There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the offeror has met the contract requirements.

Excellent: There are no cost management issues and the offeror has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the client.

Outstanding: The offeror has 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 offeror achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as “Excellent”.

Procurement-Sensitive Source Selection Document. (See FAR 1.304)

Page 4 of 5 Pages

Timeliness of Performance

Unsatisfactory: Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor: Delays require significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair: Delays require minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good: There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements.

Excellent: There are no delays and the offeror has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule.

Outstanding: the offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that the rating will be used in those race circumstances where offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as “Excellent”.

Business Relations

Unsatisfactory: Response to inquires and/or technical, service, administrative issues are not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards.

Poor: Response to inquires and/or technical, service, administrative issues are marginally effective.

Fair: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues are somewhat effective.

Good: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues are effective.

Excellent: Response to inquiries and/or technical, services administrative issues exceeds client expectation.

Outstanding: The offeror has 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 offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as “Excellent”.

Procurement-Sensitive Source Selection Document. (See FAR 1.304)

Page 5 of 5 Pages