Attachment II PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.doc

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. COAST GUARD

MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS COMMAND ATLANTIC

300 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 965

NORFOLK, VA 23510-9113

The Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command, Atlantic is currently procuring for the United States Coast Guard Academy, Admissions Division, all labor, management, supervision, personnel, labor, material and equipment and consultative services required to recommend, plan, create, design, produce, place, evaluate and assess the effectiveness of Coast Guard Academy recruiting, marketing, and communication initiative to the Academy’s prospect and applicant pools and their parents. As a result, we are performing a survey and reference investigation on possible contractors for the upcoming contract.

The information contained herein is considered “Source Selection Information” in accordance with FAR 3.104.

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Page 1 of 4

OFFEROR:

EVALUATING COMPANY:

EVALUATOR:

CONTRACT NUMBER:

DOLLAR VALUE:

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

CIRCLE ONE

1. Did the contractor meet established milestones?

a.

Considerably surpassed minimum requirements b.

Exceeded minimum requirements c.

Met minimum requirements d.

Less than minimum requirements e.

Considerably below minimum requirements f.

Not applicable to this contract

2. Did the contractor submit required reports and documentation in a timely manner?

f. Not applicable to this contract

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 of 4

3.

Did the contractor meet the technical and/or performance requirements that were specified in the contract?

c. Met minimum requirements

d. Less than minimum requirements

4. Did the contractor coordinate efforts with the customer effectively?

5. Was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from customer/Government personnel?

Considerably successful

Generally successful

Marginal success

Little success

No success

6. Did the contractor display initiative in meeting requirements?

Displayed excellent initiative

Displayed good initiative

Displayed some initiative

Displayed little initiative

Displayed no initiative

7. Did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely fashion to the contract to meet the requirement and to successfully solve problems?

Provided abundant resources

Provided good resources

Provided adequate resources

Provided minimal resources

Provided insufficient resources

8. Did the contractor staff the requirement with personnel having the appropriate skill and experience levels?

a. Staff considerably surpassed minimum requirements

Staff exceeded minimum requirements

Staff met minimum requirements

d. Staff below minimum requirements

e. Staff considerably below minimum requirements

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Page 3 of 4

9. Did the contractor respond positively and promptly to technical directions, contract change orders, negotiations, and in resolving other issues?

10. Was the contractor successful in responding to emergency situations?

11. Was the contractor effective in interfacing with customer/Government staff?

Extremely effective

Generally effective

Marginally effective

Generally ineffective

Extremely ineffective

12. What was the quality of personnel supplied by the contractor?

Uniformly exceptional quality

Usually above average quality

Adequate quality

Frequently poor quality

Technically deficient

13. Did the contractor provide effective reusable instructor training material?

a. Much less than estimated cost

b. Somewhat less than estimated cost

c. Comparatively equal to estimate

d. Exceeded the costs

e. Considerably surpassed estimate

14. Did the contractor provide for effective overall electronic media?

15. Did the contractor provide for effective quality of research?

a. Considerably surpassed minimum requirements

b. Exceeded minimum requirements

c. Met minimum requirements

d. Less than minimum requirements

e. Considerable below minimum requirements

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION SCORE CARD FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Page 4 of 4

Comments:

Based on the answers to the questions above, please summarize the contractor’s performance in one of the categories defined below.

OVERALL RATING

EVALUATION KEY:

EXCELLENT

E No risk anticipated with delivery of quality product/service, on time, or of any degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction

(or cost growth, if applicable) based upon offeror’s past performance.

GOOD

G Very little risk anticipated with delivery of quality product/service, on time, or of degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction

(or cost growth, if applicable) based upon the offeror’s past performance.

ACCEPTABLE

A Some potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product/service, on time, and of degradation or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth, if applicable) based upon the offeror’s past performance.

MARGINAL

M Significant potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation of performance based upon the offeror’s past performance

UNSATISFACTORY

U Contractor's past performance was below a satisfactory level, contract award is definitely not recommended

NEUTRAL

N No relevant past performance available for evaluation. The offeror has asserted that it has no relevant directly related or similar past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Return this questionnaire via e-mail prior to 29 April 2009, the due date of Request for Quote.

Wendy Culbreth

Contract Specialist e-mail: wendy.j.culbreth@uscg.mil phone: 757-628-4824

Thank you for your time and input.

ATTACHMENT II

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ACADEMY HIGHER EDUCATION MARKETING

AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES - EVALUATION WORKSHEET

“Source Selection Information” in accordance with FAR 3.104.