Attachment8-PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.doc

U.S. COAST GUARD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTE: Please return to Brenda M. Burke, Contracting Officer, via e-mail at Brenda.M.Burke@uscg.mil or fax at (860) 441-2888.

Offeror: _______________________________________________________________________ Contract Number: _______________________________________________________________ Point of Contact/Title/Telephone: ___________________________________________________

Agency: _______________________________________________________________________

FOR EACH OF THE AREAS BELOW, PLEASE CIRCLE THE RATING THAT APPLIES:

1. quality of product or service (Compliance with contract requirements; accuracy of reports; effectiveness of personnel; technical excellence)

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

1 – Poor Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

2 – Fair Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

3 – Good There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.

4 – Excellent There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government.

5 – 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 instances when contract performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."

2. cost control (Record of forecasting and controlling target costs; current, accurate, and complete billings; relationship of negotiated costs to actuals; cost efficiencies)

0 – Unsatisfactory Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency 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.

1 – Poor Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

2 – Fair Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

3 – Good There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.

4 – Excellent There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government.

5 – 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 instances where the Contractor achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."

3. timeliness of performance (Met interim milestones; reliability; responsiveness to technical direction; completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration; met delivery schedules; no liquidated damages assessed)

0 – Unsatisfactory Delays are jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recover is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

1 – Poor Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

2 – Fair Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

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

4 – Excellent There are no delays and the Contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule.

5 – 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 instances where Contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."

4. business relations (Whether the Contractor effectively managed the contract/task effort; how responsive was the Contractor to contract requirements; whether the Contractor was reasonable and cooperative; how flexible was the Contractor)

0 – Unsatisfactory Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is not effective.

1 – Poor Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is marginally effective.

2 – Fair Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective.

3 – Good Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is usually effective.

4 – Excellent Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is effective.

5 – 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 instances when contract performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."

5. MEETING SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS (Whether the Contractor successfully included small business and SDB participation among its subcontractors; whether such participation was documented properly)

0 – Unsatisfactory Performance was definitely unacceptable with respect to the objectives for small business and SDB participation in the award. If not substantially mitigated or corrected, it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards containing similar requirements/goals.

1 – Poor Performance was significantly less than what was expected of the Contractor, jeopardizing the objectives for small business and SDB participation in the award. The need for remedial attention was indicated.

2 – Fair Performance was somewhat less than anticipated achievement to date, but not so much as to jeopardize ultimate achievement of the objectives for small business and SDB participation in the award. Some deficiencies in meeting reporting requirements may have required corrective action.

3 – Good Performance was fully in line with expectations for the small business and SDB criterion. No more than minor deficiencies in reporting requirements have been experienced.

4 – Excellent Performance was substantially above anticipated achievement levels. Reporting requirements were fully achieved.

5 – Outstanding Performance was particularly noteworthy to the extent that it was significantly in excess of anticipated achievement and is commendable as an example for others. It is expected that this rating will be used in rare circumstances where the Contractor performance exceeds the performance levels of "Excellent."

Do you have any other comments relative to this Contractor's performance?

Attachment 8