HSBP1013R0071-Atts3-5.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 – EVALUATION CRETERIA

Evaluation Factors and Methodology

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Minimum Requirements

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors– The following evaluation factors will be used for this procurement:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1.1 – Overall Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1.2 – Training Content

Sub-factor 1.3 – Infrastructure

Sub-factor 1.4 – Management Plan

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Sub-factor 2.1 – Recency and Relevancy of past performance

Sub-factor 2.2 – Technical Expertise

Sub-factor 2.3 – Timeliness

Sub-factor 2.4 – Contract management and performance

Sub-factor 2.5 – Overall satisfaction

Factor 3- Cost/Price- Best Value, Trade-off Analysis

b. Order of Importance –Evaluation factors 1 through 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Both Evaluation factors 1 and 2, are more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price. All sub-factors under Factor 1-Technical Capability are equal in importance. All sub-factors under Factor 2- Past Performance are equal in importance.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall technical merit of Technical Capability in terms of capability and ability to meet Aircraft Pilot Training requirements. The Offeror shall be evaluated on how well its technical approach supports the needs and resource requirements defined in the SOW.

Sub-factor 1.1: Overall Technical Capability

Offeror(s) shall provide a description of their technical approach to performing the requirements of the solicitation. The approach shall demonstrate an understanding of the required training based on the following:

Proposed training approaches to satisfying the performance requirements in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Parts 60, 61, 91, 141 and 142.

Proof of Instructor certifications and qualifications in accordance with the FAA FAR.

Ability to perform as proposed by offering a strategy that best meets the Government's needs.

Convincingly addresses how the proposed training solution implementation and potential challenges will be met.

Sub-factor 1.2: Training Content

Offeror(s) shall provide proof that the proposed Course Materials:

Are In compliance with FAA Parts 60,61,91,141, and 142, as applicable; and Meet the stated requirements and best meets the Government’s needs

Sub-factor 1.3: Infrastructure

Offeror(s) shall provide all the needed equipment to include learning tools such as: aircraft, simulators, tools, facilities, buildings, hangar space, maintenance, fuel, training airspace, landing areas, and personnel required to successfully complete required training in a timely manner. The Offerors shall:

Demonstrate that they have these requirements by photograph, bill of lading, property lists etc…

Demonstrate that the Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD), Flight Training Device (FTD), and Full Flight Simulator (FFS), and aircraft used for training (any and all as intended for use by the Offerors) are fully and technically described with certification/qualification procedures in FAA-FAR Part 60, 61, 91, 141, 142 and Appendices.

In the event that training will take place in a FSTD and in an aircraft and the airport/heliport is not collocated with the FSTD facility, the airport must be within a 30 minute (rush hour traffic) or 5 driving miles of the FFS/FTD facility. Offeror must demonstrate this requirement with the use of maps in their proposal.

Sub-factor 1.4: Management Plan

Offeror(s) shall provide the adequate staffing, skill mix, and experience levels to provide a Management Plan that will best meet the Government’s requirements. The Offeror(s) shall:

Demonstrate an understanding of the management aspects of the requirements.

Demonstrate that the Proposed management approaches meets the training requirements.

Provide a Staffing plan that demonstrates that the offeror can successfully perform and complete the training along with certifications.

Demonstrate an understanding of Quality Management to utilize policies, process controls, tools, metrics, risk identification and assessment to ensure services delivered to the Government meets requirements and FAA standards.

Demonstrate an understanding of Risk Management to identify, mitigate, and manage problems and issues associated with programmatic and technical risk.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Sub-factor 2.1: Recency and Relevancy of Past Performance

a. Submission Requirements

The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offerors’ recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is closest to the requirements of the SOW. All aspects of present and past performance that relates to this acquisition may be considered.

b. Evaluation criteria

RECENCY- For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as contracts or subcontracts, similar to this requirement in size, scope and complexity, which are currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. More recent work has a greater impact on the rating than a less recent work.

RELEVANCY - Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort in this contract. A more relevant present and past performance record may have a greater impact on the rating than a less relevant record. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Information utilized will be obtained from the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer’s Representative through a Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 5) directly submitted to CBP and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or any other means determined by the evaluators.

Additional information may be obtained from references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful and relevant information.

The quality of the Offerors’ past performance will be evaluated based on comparison of Past Performance Questionnaires (see Attachment 5) with information the government obtains through reference checks, its own knowledge/experience, and/or from other sources. The Past Performance Questionnaire and Project Data Sheet will include assessments of the Offerors’ resilience in the face of adversity, resourcefulness, and management determination to see that the organization lived up to its commitments or standards.

The Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews using pre-scripted questions (see Attachment 5) to perform additional Customer Satisfaction reviews and validate information provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires.

Sub-factor 2.2 Technical Expertise

Offerors shall identify and describe past performance that address their abilities to fulfill the technical requirements of this RFP.

b. Minimum Requirement:

Past Performance information will assess, as a minimum, a positive history regarding the offerors’ abilities to fulfill the technical requirements of this RFP.

Sub-factor 2.3 Timeliness

a. Submission Requirements

Offerors shall identify and describe past performance that address their abilities to meet schedule requirements activities/deliverables.

b. Minimum Requirement:

Past Performance information will assess, as a minimum, a positive history regarding the offerors’ abilities to meet schedule requirements activities/deliverables of this RFP.

Sub-factor 2.4 Contract Management and Performance

Offerors shall identify and describe past performance that address their abilities regarding conformance to contract requirements, specifications, cost control, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., professional, environmental, or safety and health standards)

b. Minimum Requirement:

Past Performance information will assess, as a minimum, a positive history regarding the offerors’ abilities regarding conformance to contract requirements, specifications, cost control, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., professional, environmental, or safety and health standards)

Sub-factor 2.5 Overall Satisfaction

Offerors shall identify and describe past performance that address their responsiveness to customer concerns; flexibility; problem resolution; history of reasonable, cooperative and proactive behavior; and overall commitment to customer satisfaction.

b. Minimum Requirement:

Past Performance information will assess, as a minimum, a positive history regarding the offerors’ responsiveness to customer concerns; flexibility; problem resolution; history of reasonable, cooperative and proactive behavior; and overall commitment to customer satisfaction.

No Record of Past Performance

In accordance with FAR 15.305(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information or past performance is not available the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably with respect to past performance. The rating shall be characterized as “Neutral” in such circumstances. Offerors’ past performance evaluation may consider the past performance of key personnel assigned to this project; and substantial subcontractors.

FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

The Government will conduct a price evaluation of the offerors’ cost/price proposal. A price analysis will be conducted to determine if proposed prices accurately and adequately reflect the work to be performed.

a. Submission Requirements

The offerors will submit one (1) original and two (2) hard copies of their cost/price proposal; plus one CD-ROM in Microsoft excel.

b. Evaluation criteria

Cost/Price will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness of proposed cost/price. Cost/price will also be evaluated to determine the best value, using trade-off analysis pursuant to FAR 15.101-1. Trade-off analysis permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal merits the additional cost,

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Each technical proposal shall be evaluated qualitatively. The adjectives that will be used in assessing the technical and past performance factors are described below:

2.1 Technical Approach Factor. The merit rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

The following adjectival ratings will be used to rate the merit portion of the sub-factors in Factor 1 Technical Approach.

Table 1: Evaluation Ratings for Technical Approach

Symbol Adjectival Definition

Technical Proposal

“O” Outstanding

Proposal meets all or most of the objective requirements and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature that benefits the Government. Offeror has clearly demonstrated a capability to provide timely products and services in the highest quality, reliability, safety and functionality.

“S” Satisfactory

Proposal meets all or most of the threshold requirements and meets or exceeds a few objective requirements in a way that benefits the Government. Any weaknesses are generally offset by the strengths. No deficiencies exist.

“M” Marginal

The proposal is ambiguous or vague and does not meet the minimum requirements. It contains weaknesses or minor deficiencies that could impact quality, reliability, safety and functionality.

“U” Unsatisfactory The proposal has many or very significant deficiencies or gross omissions and does not substantially comply with the requirements. Numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist.

The following confidence ratings will be used to rate the risk portion of the sub-factors in the Technical Approach.

Table 1a Risk Evaluation Ratings

(L) Low

Little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort should be able to overcome difficulties.

(M) Medium

Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis should be able to overcome difficulties.

(H) High

Likely to cause significant serious disruption of schedule; increase in cost¸ or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis.

Past Performance Factors. The merit rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

The following adjectival ratings will be used to rate the merit portion of the Factor 2 Past Performance.

Table 2: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Symbol Adjectival Definition

Past Performance

“E” Exceptional The contractor’s performance greatly exceeded the contract requirements.

“HA”

Highly

Acceptable The contractor’s performance exceeded the contract requirements.

“A” Acceptable The contractor’s performance met the contract requirements.

“M” Marginal The contractor’s performance failed to meet the contract requirements (some material aspects of the contractor’s performance were less than satisfactory).

“U” Unacceptable The contractor’s performance failed significantly to meet the contract requirements (performance was poor).

“N” Neutral The item being rated does not apply or the evaluator has insufficient information to rate the item.

The following adjectives that will be used in assessing risk factors for past performance

Table 2a: Past Performance Risk Evaluation Ratings

(L) Low

Based on the offeror’s past performance or specialized experience little risk anticipated that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(M) Medium

Based on the offeror’s past performance or specialized experience, some potential risk exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(H) High

Based on the offeror’s past performance or specialized experience, substantial risk exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(N) Neutral No performance record is identifiable.

ATTACHMENT 4:

AIRCRAFT PILOT TRAINING

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE

Supplier Name:

Point of Contact:

Telephone:

Date:

Business Category (check all that apply)

SM=Small _____ LG=Large _______

SDVO=Service Disabled Veteran Owned ______

VO = Veteran Owned ______

Questionnaire Instructions:

Section A: Provide your answers with either a Yes or No answer.

Section B: Indicate which training you are proposing for by placing an “X” in the coordinating box.

Section C: Provide at least three (3) past performance references for Aircraft Pilot Training you have performed or been a subcontract. Your references may be private individuals, businesses or Government entities.

Section A: FAA Requirements – Please circle Yes or No

Do you have a Part 141 – Certificate? Yes or No?

Do you have a Part 142 – Certificate? Yes or No?

Do you have Initial/transition/aircraft type rating FAA-FAR Part 61.63 Certification? Yes or No?

Please provide evidence.

Do you have Initial/transition/aircraft type rating FAA-FAR Part 61.153 Certification?Yes or No?

Please provide evidence.

Do you have Annual/ Refresher/Pilot-in-command (IAW) FAA-FAR Part 61.58 Certification?

Please provide evidence.

Yes or No?

Section B: Course List Please indicate which training you are proposing for by placing an “X” in the coordinating box.

Requirement Course(s) Annual Quota

Our Proposal will Address

FUNCTIONAL AREA 1: LIGHT ENFORCEMENT HELICOPTERS

AS-350 B2 INITIAL (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 13

AS-350 B2 RECURRENT (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 126

AS-350 B2 IPC OPTION; INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY COURSE

(DUAL) 50

AS-350 B2 NVG OPTION; NIGHT VISION GOGGLES WITH EPs

(DUAL) 30

AS-350 B2 M&HDA OPTION; MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN + HIGH

DENSITY ALTITUDE (DUAL) 100

AS-350 B3 INITIAL (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 20

AS-350 B3 RECURRENT (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 225

AS-350 B3 IPC OPTION; INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY COURSE

(DUAL) 70

AS-350 B3 NVG OPTION; NIGHT VISION GOGGLES WITH EPs

(DUAL) 30

AS-350 ADDITIONAL FLIGHT TIME 5

AS-350 B3 M&HDA OPTION; MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN + HIGH

DENSITY ALTITUDE (DUAL) 170

EC-120 INITIAL (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 7

EC-120 RECURRENT (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 40

EC-120 IPC OPTION; INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY COURSE (DUAL) 20

EC-120 NVG OPTION; NIGHT VISION GOGGLES WITH EPs (DUAL) 20

EC-120 ADDITIONAL FLIGHT TIME 4

EC-120 M&HDA OPTION; MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN + HIGH

DENSITY ALTITUDE (DUAL) 20

UH-1H INITIAL (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 7

UH-1H RECURRENT (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 27

UH-1H IPC OPTION; INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY COURSE (DUAL) 10

UH-1H NVG OPTION; NIGHT VISION GOGGLES WITH EPs (DUAL) 10

UH-1H ADDITIONAL FLIGHT TIME 3

UH-1H M&HDA OPTION; MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN + HIGH

DENSITY ALTITUDE (DUAL) 20

UH-1N INITIAL (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 3

UH-1N RECURRENT (SIMULATION) or CORE (DUAL) 13

UH-1N IPC OPTION; INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY COURSE (DUAL) 5

Requirement Course(s) Annual Quota

Our Proposal will Address

UH-1N NVG OPTION; NIGHT VISION GOGGLES WITH EPs (DUAL) 5

UH-1N ADDITIONAL FLIGHT TIME 2

UH-1N M&HDA OPTION; MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN + HIGH

DENSITY ALTITUDE (DUAL) 10

FUNCTIONAL AREA 2: ROTARY WING TRAINING

AW-139 INITIAL 2

AW-139 RECURRENT 5

AW-139 SECOND- IN-COMMAND (SIC) 2

AW-139 SIC TO PILOT- IN-COMMAND UPGRADE 2

AW-139 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

SIKORSKY S76B INITIAL 5

SIKORSKY S76B RECURRENT 10

SIKORSKY S76B ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

UH-60 A / L INITIAL 7

UH-60 A / L RECURRENT 93

UH-60 A / L INSTRUCTOR PILOT COURSE (IPC) 4

UH-60 A / L MAINTENANCE CHECK PILOT (MCP) 4

UH-60 A / L ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

UH-60 M INITIAL 2

UH-60 M RECURRENT 16

UH-60 M MAINTENANCE CHECK PILOT (MCP) 1

UH-60 M ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 2

FUNCTIONAL AREA 3: FIXED WING TRAINING

KA-200 INITIAL (ELECTRO-MECHANICAL) 5

KA-200 RECURRENT (ELECTRO-MECHANICAL) 40

KA-200 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 40

KA-200 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 5

KA-200 High Altitude Training 5

KA-200 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD ELECTRO-

MECHANICAL 4

KA-200 PL21 INITIAL 4

KA-200 PL21 RECURRENT 10

KA-200 PL21 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 10

KA-200 PL21 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 4

Quota

Our Proposal will Address

KA-200 PL21 High Altitude Training 4

KA-200 PL21 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

KA-350 PL21 INITIAL 20

KA-350 PL21 RECURRENT 60

KA-350 PL21 SECOND- IN- COMMAND (SIC) 2

KA-350 PL21 SIC TO PILOT-IN-COMMAND UPGRADE 2

KA-350 PL21 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 60

KA-350 PL21 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 20

KA-350 PL21 High Altitude Training 20

KA-350 PL21 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

C-12C INITIAL 7

C-12C RECURRENT 40

C-12C IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 40

C-12C Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 7

C-12C High Altitude Training 7

C-12C ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

C-550 INITIAL 13

C-550 RECURRENT 100

C-550 SECOND-IN-COMMAND (SIC) 2

C-550 SIC TO PILOT-IN-COMMAND UPGRADE 2

C-550 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 100

C-550 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 13

C-550 High Altitude Training 13

C-550 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

DHC-8 200 CORE INITIAL 6

DHC-8 200 CORE RECURRENT 50

DHC-8 200 SECOND IN COMMAND (SIC) 2

DHC-8 200 SIC TO PILOT-IN-COMMAND UPGRADE 2

DHC-8 200 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 50

DHC-8 200 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 6

DHC-8 200 High Altitude Training 6

DHC-8 200 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

DHC-8 300 CORE INITIAL 5

DHC-8 300 CORE RECURRENT 50

Quota

Our Proposal will Address

DHC-8 300 SECOND IN COMMAND (SIC) 2

DHC-8 300 SIC TO PILOT-IN-COMMAND UPGRADE 2

DHC-8 300 IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 50

DHC-8 300 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 5

DHC-8 300 High Altitude Training 5

DHC-8 300 ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

PC-12 (X) INITIAL 7

PC-12 (X) RECURRENT 20

PC-12 (X) IPC Option: Instrument Proficiency Course (Dual) 20

PC-12 (X) Reduced Vertical Separation Minima 7

PC-12 (X) High Altitude Training 7

PC-12 (X) ADDITIONAL SIMULATION PERIOD 4

TIME AND MATERIALS

RW COMMERCIAL 10

RW INSTRUMENT 10

RW FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR 5

RW FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT 5

FW COMMERCIAL 5

FW INSTRUMENT 5

FW SINGLE ENGINE LAND (SEL) 5

FW MULTIENGINE LAND (MEL) 5

FW FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR SINGLE ENGINE LAND (SEL) 5

FW FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR MULTIENGINE LAND (MEL) 5

FW FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT 5

Section C: Three (3) Past Performance References:

1) Company Name (if applicable):

POC Name:

Phone:

E-mail Address:

2) Company Name (if applicable):

POC Name:

3) Company Name (if applicable):

POC Name:

ATTACHMENT 5

Mail-in Past Performance Questionnaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

The contractor listed below is being considered in a source selection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C. 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 (15.506) 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, it is requested that you do not divulge the name of the contractor nor discuss your comments on this questionnaire with any other individuals. Upon completion of the questionnaire, please place it in a sealed envelope with your company's or agency’s return address and forward to the offeror shown below no later than _______ (Offeror to enter date).

Past Project Information:

1. Offeror (firm submitting this request): _________________________________________

2. Address: _____________________________________ Phone Number:_____________

3. Firm being evaluated (offeror or team subcontractor):_____________________________

4. Contract Number/Project Title being evaluated: _________________________________

Evaluator: (the following information will assist in the analysis of the data. Information will be kept confidential)

1. Name of Evaluator: ________________________________________________

2. Firm/Agency Name Address:

3. Phone Number: __________________

4. Position held or function in relation to project: _____________________________

Rating: Please evaluate the contractor's performance using the following ratings only:

"E" Exceptional The contractor's performance greatly exceeded the contract requirements.

"HA"

Highly

Acceptable The contractor's performance exceeded the contract requirements.

"A" Acceptable The contractor's performance met the contract requirements.

"M" Marginal The contractor’s performance failed to meet the contract requirements (some material aspects of the contractor’s performance were less than satisfactory).

"U" Unacceptable The contractor’s performance failed significantly to meet the contract requirements (performance was poor).

"N/A" Not Applicable The item being rated does not apply or the evaluator has insufficient information to rate the item.

(Do not rate on a "+" or "-" scale. Please use only the ratings provided above, without variation)

Please rate and provide any supporting information for the following:

1. The relationship between the contractor and owner's contract team and project manager.

________________________________________Rating _______

2. The contractor's on-site management and coordination of subcontractors.

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

3. The contractor's overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness and cooperative conduct:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

4. The contractor's performance on delivery of quality work:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

5. The contractor's quality control (CQC):

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

6. The contractor's ability to meet the performance schedule:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

7. The contractor's ability/actions to improve schedule problems, if applicable:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

8. The contractor's ability to control costs and provide required work at a reasonable price:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

9. The contractor's compliance with labor standards, if applicable:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

10. The contractor's compliance with safety standards and/or number of safety related incidents:

__________________________________________________________Rating _______

11. Has the contractor been issued any cure notices, show cause letters, letters of reprimand, suspension of payments, termination? If yes, please explain:

___________________________________________________Yes ______No _______

12. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If no, please state reasons for not recommending this contractor for additional work:

____________________________________________________Yes ______No ______

13. Was the customer satisfied with the end product?

____________________________________________________Yes ______No ______

14. Has the contractor been provided an opportunity to discuss any negative interim or final performance ratings? If so, what were the results?

_____________________________________________________Yes _____No ______

OVERALL RATING: ______________________

Please provide any additional applicable comments:

Past Performance Telephone Interview Questions

(Include this appendix if telephone interviews are used)

1. What is your overall impression of the services provided by {contractor}?

2. What do you see as the strengths of {contractor} on this effort?

3. What do you see as the weaknesses of {contractor} on this effort?

4. When a problem arises, how is it handled by {contractor}?

5. How does {contractor} handle customer satisfaction?

6. How do you characterize {contractor’s} ability to deliver on schedule?

7. How do you characterize {contractor’s} cost controls?

8. Would you recommend award to this contractor again?

9. What is the nature of this contractor’s business relationship with other contractors at your location?