Attch_2_DRAFT_Contractor_Assessment_and_Performance_Reporting_(CAsPR)_Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 3 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-15-R-8001
About this file
This sources sought notice requests information from potential contractors to provide operations and maintenance services for the Solid State Phased Array Radar System at five geographically separated units located in Clear, Alaska; Beale Air Force Base, California; Cape Cod Air Force Station, Massachusetts; Thule Air Base, Greenland; and Royal Air Force Fylingdales, United Kingdom. The services include 24/7 operations, maintenance, and logistical support for missile warning and space surveillance radar systems, as well as military satellite communications including Milstar, Communications Processing System, and Defense Satellite Control System. Interested parties were asked to respond to market research questions by July 15, 2015. The notice states that a draft RFP will be issued in the future for this requirement, with an anticipated contract type of fixed price incentive and cost reimbursement logistics.
Draft Contractor Assessment and Performance Reporting (CAsPR) Matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
NOTE: For "Quick" instructions, see paragraph 7.
1) Paragraph A3.25.4 of the CPARS guide states, "While the evaluation areas represent broad categories, the AO should include clear, supportable information for each area based on objective facts supported by program, quality, and other performance data tailored to the contract type, dollar value, and complexity of the requirement. The AO should present enough information in each applicable category to accurately describe the contractor's performance in a way that provides useful insight for Federal source selection officials." This CAsPR Matrix was designed and created to meet this intent. It provides detailed, objective, comprehensive performance data for each of the CPARS categories that are consistent with the CPARS definitions and are tailored to the specific requirement.
2) For illustrative purposes, these instructions reference the orange "Training" tab and focus on one CPARS category, Quality. The "Training" tab shows a notional representation of sub-elements and ratings. ALL data in this matrix, including sub-elements (column B), matrix thresholds, performance values (row 2), average value ranges (row 3), weights (column C), etc. are HIGHLY TAILORABLE and thus this matrix is completely customizable. In this example, the Quality category is broken down into six (6) separate sub-elements (column B). Each sub-element is weighted according to its relative importance (column C).
3) The top row (row 2) states the performance values, ranging from +2.50 (Exceptional) to -5.00 (Unsatisfactory). The negative performance values for Marginal and Unsatisfactory are intentionally twice that of the corresponding positive values for Very Good and Excellent to adequately represent the impact of the contractor's failure to meet minimum contract requirements. The next row (row 3) states the average value range needed to earn that CPARS rating. Each sub-element will be scored each month and the scores will be summed. For example, to earn a “Very Good” for the month, ALL sub-elements for that month must sum to between 1.00 and 1.99. Each quarter there will be a “check-in” period where all the monthly scores up to that point will be displayed as a "running average" so the Contractor will know the score they would receive at the end of the year assuming the current trend continues (columns P, X, and AF). At the end of the year, all monthly scores will be averaged to determine the overall category final score, which will determine the CPARS rating for that category. (cell AO12).
4) To determine what value is assigned to a certain sub-element, the performance for that sub-element will be evaluated to determine the performance score. The performance score will then be multiplied by the weight to determine the monthly value for that sub-element. For example, for January in "Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)," if the contractor maintained an Acc between 99.90% and 99.99% (cell E8), that would meet the definition of “Very Good” for that sub-element (cell E4) and would be scored as 1.5 points (cell E2). Each point earned gets the weight (cell C8) applied to it. In this case since the Contractor earned 1.5 points for "Very Good" performance, those points are multiplied by the weight for a total score of .30 (the score 1.5 times 20%). All the weighted scores are then added to determine the overall monthly score (cell I12).
5) In order to apply the score, input the letter value corresponding to the rating (i.e. "VG" for "Very Good") in the cell (yellow cell with red outline) for that sub-element for that month. For example, since the Contractor performed to the standard of "Very Good" in the sub-element of "Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)" in January, type "VG" (without the quotation marks) in cell I8. The yellow box will change to white and the score will automatically be calculated.
6) Each sub-element receives a rating each month. The spreadsheet will automatically calculate each score and apply them. The scores are applied two ways: 1) horizontally by averaging each month of the quarter to get a "running average" for the sub-element, and 2) vertically by adding each sub-element to see the Contractor's performance ratings across all sub-elements for that month. For example, for the quarter period Jan-Mar, one can see the Contractor's running average for the sub-element "Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)" by checking cell P8. To see how it has performed in January across all sub-elements, one can check cell I12. To see its running average across all sub-elements for the quarter, check cell P12.
7) The only cells that will accept inputs are the cells highlighted in yellow with a red border. In the yellow cells, input the Contractor's ratings for that sub-element for that period. The cells only accept E, VG, S, M, or U (for Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory, respectively). If one of these letter ratings are input into the cell, the cell will change to white and the score will appear next to the letter. The running average will also appear in all of the relevant columns or rows. If any other input is used besides E, VG, S, M, or U, the cell will remain yellow and the score will not appear. As the yellow cells are filled in, the spreadsheet will automatically begin to calculate the score and change color accordingly. (NOTE: on the orange "Training" tab, click on any cell to see a description of the function of that cell).
8) If the Contractor is performing to the standard of "Unsatisfactory," the running average or final score will be equal to or less than -3.01, and the cells will be red. If performing to the standard of "Marginal," the average will be between -1.00 and -3.00 and the cells will be yellow. "Satisfactory" is between -.99 and .99 and the cells will be green. "Very Good" is between 1.00 and 1.99 and the cells will be purple. "Exceptional" is 2.00 or greater and the cells will be blue.
9) All sub-elements will be added together each month to get the monthly score, and then all monthly scores will be averaged together to determine the final CPARS ratings for that category. Only the "Final" total average score of all sub-elements across all sites will determine the Contractor's final CPARS rating for that category for that year, as shown by the final score on the green "Roll-up" tab (cell AO12)
10) This CAsPR Matrix consists of six tabs, one for each of the five SSPARS sites and one "Roll-up" tab. Each site will receive its own rating each month. The five site scores will then be averaged in the "Roll-up" tab to reflect the overall score for the contract. Some sub-elements do not apply to each site. In such cases, the average score of the applicable sites will be used as the score for the non-applicable site. For example, at RAF Fylingdales, the Contractor is not responsible for radar Availability, so the sub-element "Radar Contractor Controlled Avail-ability (Acc)" does not apply to that site. The scores of the other four sites will be averaged and substituted for the Acc score at RAF Fylingdales (row 8 on the RAF Fylingdales tab). Similarly, every site may not be rated on every sub-element each month. For example, Thule may not have any IJOs during a certain month. In that case, those sites that do have IJOs will be scored and the average will be applied to Thule. If no site has an IJO during the month, the Contractor will be rated "Satisfactory" for that sub-element. The monthly score for each site will be averaged into one monthly score on the "Roll-up" tab. These monthly scores will then be averaged to determine the final overall score, which will determine the CPARS rating given for that category.
| NOTES: |
| 1) When populated, the CAsPR Matrix contains a Contractor's quality data for the purposes of their CPARS ratings, and thus becomes source selection information and must be protected, in accordance with paragraph 6.1 of the CPARS guide. |
2) This matrix is highly customizable. Some categories may not apply to all contracts (i.e. Utilization of Small Business or Cost Control). Some contracts may only require one or two sub-elements under each category. Some sub-elements may need to be weighted very heavily or very lightly. Columns, rows, weights, value ranges, etc. can be added, deleted, or changed as necessary. This spreadsheet is designed so that it can be customized to meet the needs of virtually any contract.
3) This spreadsheet is set up so that all sub-elements are evaluated every month. It may not be necessary or appropriate to evaluate all categories or sub-elements every month. Some categories may be better evaluated on a quarterly or semi-annual basis, or annually (i.e. Utilization of Small Business). In such a case the formulas can be modified accordingly.
4) An individual incident or performance measure may affect more than one sub-element and possibly more than one category in either a positive or negative way. It's the decision of the assessing official as to whether the incident will be applied to one or multiple areas.
5) In the event of a problem of "serious magnitude," the Government reserves the right to assign a CPARS rating based on the severity of the event, regardless of the final score. The CPARS Guide states, "A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating."
Training
| FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Values | 2.50 | 1.50 | 0 | -3.00 | -5.00 | "Exceptional" (E) = 2.50 "Very Good" (VG) = 1.50 "Satisfactory" (S) = 0.00 "Marginal" (M) = -3.00 "Unsatisfactory" (U) = -5.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall Average Value Ranges | 2.00 or greater | 1.99 to 1.00 | 0.99 to -0.99 | -1.00 to -3.00 | -3.01 or less | Contractor Assessment and Performance Reporting (CAsPR) Matrix - The Friendly Assessment Tool | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CATEGORY/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sub-elements | Weight | Exceptional | Very Good | Satisfactory | Marginal | Unsatisfactory | Jan | Feb | Mar | 1st Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Apr | May | Jun | 2nd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Jul | Aug | Sep | 3rd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Oct | Nov | Dec | 4th Qtr Avg | Overall Average |
| QUALITY | Quality of Product or Service (Subjective) | 20% | Identify multiple significant events exceeding contract requirements and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. No Government Identified Deficiencies (GID) | Identify one or more significant events exceeding contract requirement and state how they were a benefit to the Government. No Major, and No more than 1 Minor GID | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. No Major or No more than 2 Minor GIDS | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. No Major or no more than 3 Minor GIDS. Identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | Failed to meet contract requirements. Any Major or 4 or more Minors GIDS. Identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | U | -1.00 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 1.25 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 1.67 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 1.88 | |
| Corrective Actions | 20% | Highly effective corrective actions (little or no Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Little or no Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Effective correction actions (minimal Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, an close out deficiencies and trends); Some degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Moderate degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | S | 0.00 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 1.67 | 1.67 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.08 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.22 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | E | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.29 | ||
| Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) | 20% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | VG | 0.30 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.50 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | S | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | ||
| Communication Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [Milstar, Communications Processing System (CPS), Military Earth Terminal (MET)] | 20% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. No individual system less than 99.9% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. No individual System less than 99.7% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. No individual system less than 99.5%. | Any individual system Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | -3.00 | -1.50 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | -3.00 | -2.00 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | M | -0.60 | -3.00 | -2.25 | |||||
| Network Management Services | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (E-mail, File, Print) | 10% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. No individual service less than 99.9% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. No individual service less than 99.7% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. No individual service less than 99.5%. | Any individual service Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | -5.00 | -5.00 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | -5.00 | -5.00 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | -5.00 | -5.00 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | U | -0.50 | -5.00 | -5.00 | ||
| Mission Capable Rate. | 10% | Achieve a 97% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 95% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 90% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 85% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve less than 85% total fleet Mission capable rate. | U | -0.50 | VG | 0.15 | S | 0.00 | -1.17 | -1.17 | S | 0.00 | M | -0.30 | U | -0.50 | -2.67 | -1.92 | U | -0.50 | M | -0.30 | S | 0.00 | -2.67 | -2.17 | S | 0.00 | VG | 0.15 | E | 0.25 | 1.33 | -1.29 | ||
| Total Quality | 100% | -1.70 | 0.65 | 0.50 | -0.18 | -0.18 | -0.10 | -0.40 | -0.60 | -0.37 | -0.28 | -0.60 | -0.40 | -0.10 | -0.37 | -0.31 | -0.10 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.22 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCHEDULE | Schedule | 30% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No GIDs. | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No GIDs | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 1 Minor Government Identified Deficiencies (GIDs) | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 2 Minor GIDs. | Failed to meet contract requirements. 1 or more Major or 3 or more Minor GIDs. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Corrective Actions | 20% | Highly effective corrective actions (little or no Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Little or no Government technical direction required to solve problems. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Effective correction actions (minimal Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, an close out deficiencies and trends); Some degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Moderate degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
| Deliverables | 20% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. 100% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. >95% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight and-follow up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. >90% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. <90% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | Schedule, including deliverables and severable work projects, failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
| Individual Job Orders (IJOs) | 20% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. 100% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. No GIDs | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. 100% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. No GIDs | Moderate Government oversight and follow up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. >90% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. <90% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | IJOs failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
| Receive and Execute Work Requests - Routine. | 10% | Routine work completed in 1 business days. | Routine work completed in 3 business days. | Routine work completed in 5 business days. | Routine work completed in 10 business days. | Routine work completed in greater than 10 business days. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Schedule | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| COST CONTROL | Cost Control | 20% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | Invoicing and cost management failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Invoice Submission | 20% | 100% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 90.1% - 99.9% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 90% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 50% - 89.9% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | Less than 50% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Cost Avoidance/Loss | 50% | Demonstrated cost avoidance to the Government > $40,000.00 | Demonstrated cost avoidance to the Government of $100 to $39,999.99 | No demonstrated significant cost avoidance or loss to the Government | Demonstrated cost loss to the Government of $100 to $9,999.99 | Demonstrated cost loss to the Government > $10,000.00. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Government Identified Deficiencies | 10% | No Government Identified Deficiencies | No Major, and No more than 1 Minor. | No Major and no more than 2 Minor. | 1 Major or 3 minor. | More than 1 Major or 4 or more Minors. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Total Cost Control | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| MANAGEMENT | Integration and Coordination | 30% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Contractor's management of ensuring integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract failed to meet contract requirements. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Scheduling | 30% | 100% shift coverage AND between 95.1% - 100% of staffing positions are filled. | 100% shift coverage AND between 90.1% - 95% of staffing positions are filled. | 100% shift coverage AND at between 80% - 90% of staffing positions are filled. | EITHER between 90% - 99.9% shift coverage OR between 60% - 79.9% of staffing positions are filled OR BOTH | EITHER less than 90% shift coverage OR less than 60% of staffing positions are filled OR BOTH | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Communication of information to affected program elements | 20% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Contractor's management of communicating appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner failed to meet contract requirements. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Issue Management | 20% | Highly effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Satisfactory issue management practices, including identification and implementation of risk mitigation plans. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans is marginally effective. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans are ineffective. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Total Management | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS | Utilization of Small Business (SB) | 50% | Exceeded all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Demonstrated exceptional success in giving small businesses meaningful and innovative work in mission critical aspects of the contract. Went above and beyond the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Met or exceeded all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Demonstrated significant success in giving small businesses meaningful and innovative work in mission critical aspects of the contract. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Demonstrated good faith effort to meet all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Fulfilled the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. Only minor problems or major problems for which corrective actions was satisfactory. | Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements, which impacted small business utilization. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner. | Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and the Subcontracting Plan. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total Utilization of Small Business | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||||||
| UTIL. OF SB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| REGULATORY COMPLIANCE | Regulatory Compliance | 100% | Regulatory compliance met contract requirements. | Regulatory compliance failed to meet contract requirements. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||||
| Total Regulatory Compliance | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| OTHER AREA 1 | Other Area 1 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Total Other Area 1 | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| OTHER AREA 2 | Other Area 2 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Total Other Area 2 | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| OTHER AREA 3 | Other Area 3 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| Total Other Area 3 | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE
SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE
SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503
Roll-up
| FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Values | 2.50 | 1.50 | 0 | -3.00 | -5.00 | "Exceptional" (E) = 2.50 "Very Good" (VG) = 1.50 "Satisfactory" (S) = 0.00 "Marginal" (M) = -3.00 "Unsatisfactory" (U) = -5.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall Average Value Ranges | 2.00 or greater | 1.99 to 1.00 | 0.99 to -0.99 | -1.00 to -3.00 | -3.01 or less | Annual CPAR Scoring | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CATEGORY/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sub-elements | Weight | Exceptional | Very Good | Satisfactory | Marginal | Unsatisfactory | Jan | Feb | Mar | 1st Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Apr | May | Jun | 2nd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Jul | Aug | Sep | 3rd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Oct | Nov | Dec | 4th Qtr Avg | Overall Average |
| QUALITY | Quality of Product or Service (Subjective) | 20% | Identify multiple significant events exceeding contract requirements and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. No Government Identified Deficiencies (GID) | Identify one or more significant events exceeding contract requirement and state how they were a benefit to the Government. No Major, and No more than 1 Minor GID | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. No Major or No more than 2 Minor GIDS | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. No Major or no more than 3 Minor GIDS. Identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | Failed to meet contract requirements. Any Major or 4 or more Minors GIDS. Identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 2.13 | 2.13 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 1.20 | 1.67 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.90 | 1.41 | -0.12 | -0.12 | -0.12 | -0.60 | 0.91 | ||||
| Corrective Actions | 20% | Highly effective corrective actions (little or no Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Little or no Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Effective correction actions (minimal Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, an close out deficiencies and trends); Some degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Moderate degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.42 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 0.22 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 1.20 | 1.43 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.70 | 1.19 | -0.10 | -0.16 | -0.16 | -0.70 | 0.72 | |||||
| Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) | 20% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.79 | 0.98 | -0.15 | -0.15 | -0.08 | -0.63 | 0.44 | -0.40 | -0.28 | -0.28 | -1.58 | -0.06 | |||||
| Communication Systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [Milstar, Communications Processing System (CPS), Military Earth Terminal (MET)] | 20% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. No individual system less than 99.9% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. No individual System less than 99.7% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. No individual system less than 99.5%. | Any individual system Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.14 | -0.18 | -0.07 | 0.30 | -0.24 | -0.56 | -0.24 | -1.73 | -0.38 | -0.38 | -0.34 | -0.38 | -1.83 | -0.74 | |||||
| Network Management Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (E-mail, File, Print) | 10% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100%. | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.9% to less than 100%. No individual service less than 99.9% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.7% to less than 99.9%. No individual service less than 99.7% | Average Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 99.7%. No individual service less than 99.5%. | Any individual service Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 99.5%. | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.27 | -0.27 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.20 | -0.23 | -0.26 | -0.26 | -0.13 | -2.17 | -0.88 | -0.36 | -0.36 | -0.42 | -3.80 | -1.61 | |||||
| Mission Capable Rate. | 10% | Achieve a 97% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 95% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 90% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve a 85% total fleet Mission capable rate. | Achieve less than 85% total fleet Mission capable rate. | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.33 | -0.30 | -0.30 | -0.30 | -3.00 | 0.25 | |||||
| Total Quality | 100% | 1.50 | 0.93 | 1.63 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 1.05 | -0.33 | -0.65 | -0.13 | -0.37 | 0.58 | -1.66 | -1.56 | -1.66 | -1.62 | 0.03 | ||||||||||
| Total Quality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCHEDULE | Schedule | 30% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No GIDs. | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No GIDs | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 1 Minor Government Identified Deficiencies (GIDs) | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 2 Minor GIDs. | Failed to meet contract requirements. 1 or more Major or 3 or more Minor GIDs. | -1.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -1.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 2.50 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 2.50 | 1.25 | ||||
| Corrective Actions | 20% | Highly effective corrective actions (little or no Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Little or no Government technical direction required to solve problems. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Effective correction actions (minimal Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, an close out deficiencies and trends); Some degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Moderate degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.83 | 1.83 | 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.83 | 1.83 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.06 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.17 | |||||
| Deliverables | 20% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. 100% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. >95% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight and-follow up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. >90% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure deliverables are timely and accurate. <90% of deliverables are submitted on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | Schedule, including deliverables and severable work projects, failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | |||||
| Individual Job Orders (IJOs) | 20% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. 100% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. No GIDs | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. 100% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. No GIDs | Moderate Government oversight and follow up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. >90% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure IJOs are managed effectively. <90% of IJOs completed on or ahead of schedule. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | IJOs failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | |||||
| Receive and Execute Work Requests - Routine. | 10% | Routine work completed in 1 business days. | Routine work completed in 3 business days. | Routine work completed in 5 business days. | Routine work completed in 10 business days. | Routine work completed in greater than 10 business days. | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | |||||
| Total Schedule | 100% | -0.15 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 1.62 | 1.62 | -0.15 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 1.91 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.06 |
| COST CONTROL | Cost Control | 20% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight and follow up required to ensure proposals and other cost-related documents are timely and accurate. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily | Invoicing and cost management failed to meet contract requirements. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 0.10 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.73 | 1.31 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 1.40 | 1.33 |
| Invoice Submission | 20% | 100% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 90.1% - 99.9% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 90% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 50% - 89.9% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | Less than 50% of invoices submitted on or ahead of schedule | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.28 | 1.23 | 1.23 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 1.40 | 1.32 | 0.06 | 0.28 | -0.02 | 0.53 | 1.06 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 1.20 | 1.09 | |
| Cost Avoidance/Loss | 50% | Demonstrated cost avoidance to the Government > $40,000.00 | Demonstrated cost avoidance to the Government of $100 to $39,999.99 | No demonstrated significant cost avoidance or loss to the Government | Demonstrated cost loss to the Government of $100 to $9,999.99 | Demonstrated cost loss to the Government > $10,000.00. | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.70 | -0.20 | 0.35 | -0.40 | -0.17 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.43 | |
| Government Identified Deficiencies | 10% | No Government Identified Deficiencies | No Major, and No more than 1 Minor. | No Major and no more than 2 Minor. | 1 Major or 3 minor. | More than 1 Major or 4 or more Minors. | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 0.01 | 0.12 | -0.03 | 0.33 | 0.91 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 1.00 | 0.93 | |
| Total Cost Control | 100% | 1.07 | 0.97 | 1.07 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.05 | -0.03 | 1.07 | -0.43 | 0.20 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.80 |
| MANAGEMENT | Integration and Coordination | 30% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract AND any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Contractor's management of ensuring integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract failed to meet contract requirements. | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.30 | -0.12 | -0.30 | -0.39 | -0.90 | -0.30 | -0.69 | -0.69 | -0.39 | -1.97 | -0.86 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.20 | -0.59 |
| Scheduling | 30% | 100% shift coverage AND between 95.1% - 100% of staffing positions are filled. | 100% shift coverage AND between 90.1% - 95% of staffing positions are filled. | 100% shift coverage AND at between 80% - 90% of staffing positions are filled. | EITHER between 90% - 99.9% shift coverage OR between 60% - 79.9% of staffing positions are filled OR BOTH | EITHER less than 90% shift coverage OR less than 60% of staffing positions are filled OR BOTH | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 1.07 | 1.12 | -0.33 | -0.06 | 0.33 | -0.07 | 0.72 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 1.10 | 0.82 | |
| Communication of information to affected program elements | 20% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner AND any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Contractor's management of communicating appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner failed to meet contract requirements. | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 1.63 | 1.63 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.36 | 1.43 | 1.53 | 0.06 | -0.04 | 0.36 | 0.63 | 1.23 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.36 | 1.43 | 1.28 | |
| Issue Management | 20% | Highly effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans AND NO significant weaknesses identified | Satisfactory issue management practices, including identification and implementation of risk mitigation plans. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans is marginally effective. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans are ineffective. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.30 | -0.12 | -0.36 | 0.00 | -0.80 | -0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.40 | 0.05 | |
| Total Management | 100% | 0.64 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.61 | -1.08 | -1.15 | 0.30 | -0.64 | 0.19 | 0.83 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.33 |
| UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS | Utilization of Small Business (SB) | 50% | Exceeded all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Demonstrated exceptional success in giving small businesses meaningful and innovative work in mission critical aspects of the contract. Went above and beyond the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Met or exceeded all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Demonstrated significant success in giving small businesses meaningful and innovative work in mission critical aspects of the contract. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. NO significant weaknesses identified. | Demonstrated good faith effort to meet all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. Fulfilled the required elements of the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. Only minor problems or major problems for which corrective actions was satisfactory. | Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements, which impacted small business utilization. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner. | Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and the Subcontracting Plan. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner. | 1.15 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.43 | 2.43 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.47 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.48 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.48 |
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | 1.15 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.43 | 2.43 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.47 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.48 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.50 | 2.48 | ||||||
| Total Utilization of Small Business | 100% | 2.30 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.43 | 2.43 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.47 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.48 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.48 | ||||||
| UTIL. OF SB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| REGULATORY COMPLIANCE | Regulatory Compliance | 100% | Regulatory compliance met contract requirements. | Regulatory compliance failed to meet contract requirements. | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.80 | -0.10 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.53 | -0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.48 | |||
| Total Regulatory Compliance | 100% | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.80 | -0.10 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.53 | -0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
| OTHER AREA 1 | Other Area 1 | 50% | 1.15 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 1.57 | 1.57 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 0.90 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 1.60 | 1.39 | 0.90 | 1.05 | 0.90 | 1.90 | 1.52 |
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | 1.15 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 1.57 | 1.57 | 0.40 | 0.70 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 1.00 | 1.47 | 1.34 | 1.15 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 2.17 | 1.55 | |
| Total Other Area 1 | 100% | 2.30 | 1.40 | 1.00 | 1.57 | 1.57 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 1.50 | 1.20 | 1.90 | 1.53 | 1.37 | 2.05 | 2.10 | 1.95 | 2.03 | 1.53 |
| OTHER AREA 2 | Other Area 2 | 50% | 1.15 | 1.25 | 1.15 | 2.37 | 2.37 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 1.62 | -0.05 | -0.25 | 0.40 | 0.07 | 1.10 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 1.03 |
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.15 | 2.30 | 2.30 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 1.58 | 0.50 | -0.25 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 1.20 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 1.10 | |
| Total Other Area 2 | 100% | 2.30 | 2.40 | 2.30 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 1.60 | 0.45 | -0.50 | 0.80 | 0.25 | 1.15 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 1.06 |
| OTHER AREA 3 | Other Area 3 | 50% | 1.15 | 0.40 | 1.15 | 1.80 | 1.80 | -0.25 | -0.05 | 0.40 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 0.88 |
| Sub-element 1 | 50% | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.15 | 2.30 | 2.30 | -0.25 | -0.05 | 0.50 | 0.13 | 1.22 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 1.10 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.87 | 1.04 | |
| Total Other Area 3 | 100% | 2.30 | 1.55 | 2.30 | 2.05 | 2.05 | -0.50 | -0.10 | 0.90 | 0.10 | 1.08 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 1.01 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.96 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .