Exhibit 2a Past Performance Survey D-B Rating Guidelines
The contractor listed above is being considered in a Source Selection by the U.S. General Services Administration, Northwest/Artic Region. Auburn, WA. It would be appreciated if you would provide us with comments regarding the contractor’s past performance. Your comments are considered Source Selection Sensitive, therefore, you are advised that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (3.104-5) prohibits the release of the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance. In order to maintain the integrity of the source selection process, respectfully request that you do not divulge the name of the contractor nor discuss your comments on this questionnaire with any other individuals.
Handwritten completion of this questionnaire in ink is acceptable, if legible.
Please include evaluation of contractor’s performance based solely on the performance for which the contractor was/is liable. Please do not let factors beyond the control of the contractor that have resulted in performance delays or other problems bias the evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
Quality of Product or Service
N/A=Not Applicable 0=Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Excellent 5=Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources |
| Poor |
| Overall compliance requires major Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Good |
| Overall compliance does not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Excellent |
| There are no quality problems |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor 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 contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Cost Control
N/A=Not Applicable 0=Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Excellent 5=Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources |
| Poor |
| Ability to manage cost issues requires major Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Fair |
| Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Good |
| Management of cost issues does not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Excellent |
| There are no cost management issues |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor 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 contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Timeliness of Performance
N/A=Not Applicable 0=Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Excellent 5=Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources |
| Poor |
| Delays require major Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Fair |
| Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Good |
| Delays do not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Excellent |
| There are no delays |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor 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 contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Effectiveness of Management / Business Relations
N/A=Not Applicable 0=Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Excellent 5=Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is not effective |
| Poor |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is marginally effective |
| Fair |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective |
| Good |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is usually effective |
| Excellent |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is effective |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor 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 contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Overall Rating
N/A=Not Applicable 0=Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Excellent 5=Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources |
| Poor |
| Overall compliance requires major Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Good |
| Overall compliance does not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Excellent |
| There are no problems |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor 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 contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
