Attachment_J007_-_Technical_Evaluation_Worksheet.pdf

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PA-TAC EVALUATION WORKSHEET

SECTION I: TASK ORDER ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION

Task Monitor's Name:

Task Performed By:

Description of Project:

FEMA Office/Region: Task Monitor's Phone Number:

Contract Number: Task Order Number: Disaster Number (Project Number):

Project Title:

Evaluation Type: Project Complexity:

Quality of Product or Service (use below guidelines for quality rating)

To complete this section, fill out each of the following rating recommendations and evaluation comments below. For each evaluation factor, select the appropriate rating from the drop-down menu. In the Evaluation Comments section, provide supporting comments to substantiate that rating. To support the assigned rating, the Comments should contain sufficient information, based on supporting documentation, and include successes and failures, as well as specific corrective actions, as appropriate. The evaluation comments must directly apply to the performance requirements in the agreed upon proposal. These comments are required in order for the evaluation to be accepted for review by the Contracting Officer's Representative.

Period of Performance Being Assessed: From: To:

Date:

SECTION II: RATINGS

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Deliverables are precedent-setting. Reports are concise, thorough, and easy to understand. Deliverables document innovative or creative approaches. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Reports are adequately written with minimal rework required. Data provided is accurate and easy to understand. Products or services exceed the specifications of the Task Order. Little Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arose during performance. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. No significant weaknesses identified.

Project Location:

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to the contract. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made. No significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Recommendations and reports marginally effective. Some data flawed. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Recommendations ineffective. Reports poorly written, not usable and ineffective. Most data is flawed. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Quality of Product or Service Rating

Quality Evaluation Comments

PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAST PAGE WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM

Termination Type:

Contract Percent Complete:

Schedule (use below guidelines for schedule rating)

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. All deliverables submitted ahead of schedule.

Precedent-setting creative and innovative means to shorten time frames. Proactive in identifying issues and in responding to project demands. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. All deliverables submitted on schedule. Adequate documentation submitted for requests to extend due dates. Efforts taken to reduce time well documented. Consistent response to issues and requests. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor meets agreed upon schedule. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to the schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made. No significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous schedule issues. Slippage of schedule without justification or warning.

Frequent failure to provide satisfactory documents for requests to extend due dates. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Frequent slippage of schedule without adequate warning or justification. Frequent requests to extend due dates as a result of contractor caused issues. Failure to respond to issues and requests. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Schedule Rating

Schedule Evaluation Comments

Cost Control (use below guidelines for cost control rating)

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. No cost issues. Assignment completed within budget.

Significant cost avoidance measures implemented with excellent documentation. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Few cost issues. Requests to provide documentation for cost increase rare. Cost avoidance efforts are demonstrated. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor meets agreed upon costs. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to costs or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous cost issues. Costs not adequately managed and/or management of costs ineffective. Failure to provide satisfactory documents for cost increases. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to manage costs. Budget exceeded without adequate warning or justification. Failure to provide documentation for cost increases. Requirements for additional funding to complete the project. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Cost Control Rating

Cost Control Evaluation Comments

Current Cost Variance (%)* Variance at Completion (%)*

Current Schedule Variance (%)*

Management of Task Order (use below guidelines for Management rating)

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Excellent balance of staff. Outstanding selection and management of staff and subcontractors. Staff exceeded required contract qualifications for the position(s). Proactive communication. Contractor quickly corrects performance issues. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement exceeded the required contract qualifications. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. Personnel executed the work according to work plan. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement met the contract qualifications. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to cost or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Appropriate assignment of personnel. Successful identification and resolution of issues. Regular communication. Effective monitoring of subcontractors. Contractor corrected performance issues. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement met the required contract qualifications. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Assignment of staff marginally effective. Communication protocol not fully implemented. Implementation of contractual requirements marginally effective. Management of subcontractors marginally effective. Management had numerous issues selecting, retaining and supporting personnel. If a replacement of personnel was required, personnel replaced marginally met requirements. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to assign appropriate personnel. Poor utilization of resources. Failure to maintain regular communications. Implementation of contract requirements ineffective. Failure to manage subcontractors. Agreed upon personnel did not perform tasks. Contractor failed in replacing personnel when necessary. Assigned personnel did not meet the required qualifications for the position. When performance issues were identified, the contractor failed to correct the issue. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Management Rating

Management Evaluation Comments

Small Business Utilization Not Applicable (N/A). Will be entered into the Performance Rating System (CPARS) by the COR and/or Program Specialist.

Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor met the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to cost or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Contractor exceeded the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes, i.e. Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, labor regulations. If compliance issues arose, contractor quickly identified and corrected issues. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Contractor exceeded the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes, i.e. Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, labor regulations. No compliance issues. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Exceptional

Regulatory Compliance (If applicable, use below guidelines for regulatory compliance rating. If not applicable, select "N/A".)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous compliance issues. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Marginal

Regulatory Compliance Rating

SECTION III: REMARKS

Regulatory Compliance Evaluation Comments

(1) Area

Other Areas (if applicable): Additional evaluation areas that are unique to the Task Order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere in the evaluation

Rating

(2) Area

(3) Area

Rating

Rating

Other Areas Evaluation Comments

Would You Recommend the Contractor for Similar Requirements in the Future?

Additional general comments not directly related to an evaluation area:

I Would Not I Would

INSTRUCTIONS

PURPOSE. The FEMA PA TAC Evaluation Worksheet (TEW) is the primary means through which the Agency will evaluate and document contractor performance under the Public Assistance Technical Assistance Contracts. The information contained within the TEW is gathered on a regular basis and should be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and the Program Specialist assigned to the Task Order. Task Monitors (TM) are responsible for completing TEWs : (1) Prior to exercising an option period; (2) Prior to a FEMA TM transitioning from the respective Task Order Monitoring role; and/or (3) End of the Period of Performance. An informal TEW shall be completed at anytime to document exceptional performance or non-performance issues. The informal TEW information and other submitted TEWs will be included in the TAC performance evaluation created by the COR.

SECTION I. Please complete all required fields in Section I.

Date: Self-explanatory FEMA Office / Region: Self-explanatory Task Monitor's Name: Self-explanatory Telephone Number: Where you can be reached during the Period of Performance Task Performed By: Identify the applicable PA-TAC contractor Contract Number: Identify the applicable Contract Number Task Order (TO) Number: Identify the applicable Task Order Number Disaster Number: Self-explanatory Project Location: Enter the location where the contractor was required to report to (if other than contractor address) Contract Percent Complete: Enter the percent of the contract or order that has been completed at the time the evaluation is being done.

Use data from any Earned Value Management Systems, progress reports, schedules, and payment information, as applicable, to determine the percent complete.

Evaluation Type: Indicate whether the Evaluation is an Interim, or a Final report.

Project Complexity : Difficulty of project being performed.

Project Title: Enter the title of the project, e.g. Feather River Restructuring Project Period of Performance: Select the beginning date and end date for the TO Termination Type: Self-explanatory Brief Description: Enter the TO Description, e.g., Prepare Project Worksheets

SECTION II. Evaluate the Contractor's performance with respect to each rated element. You must have at least one rating assigned.

*If Cost Performance Report (CPR) or Cost/Schedule Status Review (C/SSR) data are available, identify the current percent cost variance to date, the Government's estimated variance at completion (percent), and the cumulative schedule variance (percent). Indicate the cutoff date for the CPR or C/SSR used.

Current Schedule Variance (%):Compute cumulative schedule variance percentage by dividing the Earned Value less Planned Value by Planned Value, and multiply by 100. The formula for the calculation is: [(Earned Value - Planned Value)/Planned Value] x 100. If the schedule variance exceeds 15 percent (positive or negative), briefly discuss in the Assessing Official Narrative the significance of this variance for the contract or order effort in the "Schedule Evaluation Comments" Section.

Current Cost Variance (%): Compute current cost variance percentage by dividing cumulative cost variance to date by the Earned Value and multiply by 100.

Variance at Completion (%): Compute Variance at Completion (VAC) cost percentage by subtracting the Estimate at Completion (EAC) from the Budget at Completion (BAC), dividing the result by the Budget at Completion (BAC) and multiplying by 100. The calculation is VAC=(BAC - EAC)/BAC X 100. The BAC must be the current budget base against which the contractor is performing (including formally established Over Target Baselines (OTB)). If an OTB has been established since the last CPAR, a brief description in the Assessing Official Narrative of the nature and magnitude of the baseline adjustment must be provided. Subsequent CPARs must evaluate cost performance in terms of the revised baseline and reference the CPAR that described the baseline adjustment. For example, "The contract baseline was formally adjusted on (date); see CPAR for (period covered by report) for an explanation."

SECTION III. Provide additional remarks regarding the contractor's performance.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PA-TAC EVALUATION WORKSHEET

SECTION I: TASK ORDER ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION

Quality of Product or Service (use below guidelines for quality rating) To complete this section, fill out each of the following rating recommendations and evaluation comments below. For each evaluation factor, select the appropriate rating from the drop-down menu. In the Evaluation Comments section, provide supporting comments to substantiate that rating. To support the assigned rating, the Comments should contain sufficient information, based on supporting documentation, and include successes and failures, as well as specific corrective actions, as appropriate. The evaluation comments must directly apply to the performance requirements in the agreed upon proposal. These comments are required in order for the evaluation to be accepted for review by the Contracting Officer's Representative.

Period of Performance Being Assessed:

SECTION II: RATINGS

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Deliverables are precedent-setting. Reports are concise, thorough, and easy to understand. Deliverables document innovative or creative approaches. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Reports are adequately written with minimal rework required. Data provided is accurate and easy to understand. Products or services exceed the specifications of the Task Order. Little Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arose during performance. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. No significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to the contract. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made. No significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Recommendations and reports marginally effective. Some data flawed. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Recommendations ineffective. Reports poorly written, not usable and ineffective. Most data is flawed. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAST PAGE WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM

Schedule (use below guidelines for schedule rating) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. All deliverables submitted ahead of schedule. Precedent-setting creative and innovative means to shorten time frames. Proactive in identifying issues and in responding to project demands. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. All deliverables submitted on schedule. Adequate documentation submitted for requests to extend due dates. Efforts taken to reduce time well documented. Consistent response to issues and requests. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor meets agreed upon schedule. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to the schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made. No significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous schedule issues. Slippage of schedule without justification or warning. Frequent failure to provide satisfactory documents for requests to extend due dates. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Frequent slippage of schedule without adequate warning or justification. Frequent requests to extend due dates as a result of contractor caused issues. Failure to respond to issues and requests. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Cost Control (use below guidelines for cost control rating) Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. No cost issues. Assignment completed within budget. Significant cost avoidance measures implemented with excellent documentation. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Few cost issues. Requests to provide documentation for cost increase rare. Cost avoidance efforts are demonstrated. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor meets agreed upon costs. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to costs or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous cost issues. Costs not adequately managed and/or management of costs ineffective. Failure to provide satisfactory documents for cost increases. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to manage costs. Budget exceeded without adequate warning or justification. Failure to provide documentation for cost increases. Requirements for additional funding to complete the project. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Management of Task Order (use below guidelines for Management rating) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Excellent balance of staff. Outstanding selection and management of staff and subcontractors. Staff exceeded required contract qualifications for the position(s). Proactive communication. Contractor quickly corrects performance issues. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement exceeded the required contract qualifications. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. Personnel executed the work according to work plan. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement met the contract qualifications. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to cost or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Appropriate assignment of personnel. Successful identification and resolution of issues. Regular communication. Effective monitoring of subcontractors. Contractor corrected performance issues. If replacing personnel was necessary due to performance, the replacement met the required contract qualifications. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Assignment of staff marginally effective. Communication protocol not fully implemented. Implementation of contractual requirements marginally effective. Management of subcontractors marginally effective. Management had numerous issues selecting, retaining and supporting personnel. If a replacement of personnel was required, personnel replaced marginally met requirements. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to assign appropriate personnel. Poor utilization of resources. Failure to maintain regular communications. Implementation of contract requirements ineffective. Failure to manage subcontractors. Agreed upon personnel did not perform tasks. Contractor failed in replacing personnel when necessary. Assigned personnel did not meet the required qualifications for the position. When performance issues were identified, the contractor failed to correct the issue. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Small Business Utilization Not Applicable (N/A). Will be entered into the Performance Rating System (CPARS) by the COR and/or Program Specialist.

Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor met the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes. To justify a "Satisfactory" rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor was able to recover from without impact to cost or schedule. If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction, noting the correction made.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. Contractor exceeded the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes, i.e. Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, labor regulations. If compliance issues arose, contractor quickly identified and corrected issues. To justify a "Very Good" rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. Contractor exceeded the compliance terms and conditions relating to applicable regulations and codes, i.e. Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, labor regulations. No compliance issues. To justify an "Exceptional" rating, identify multiple significant events 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Exceptional Regulatory Compliance (If applicable, use below guidelines for regulatory compliance rating. If not applicable, select "N/A".)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions. To justify an "Unsatisfactory" rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Numerous compliance issues. To justify a "Marginal" performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing how the contractor was notified of the contractual deficiency.

Marginal

SECTION III: REMARKS

Other Areas (if applicable): Additional evaluation areas that are unique to the Task Order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere in the evaluation Would You Recommend the Contractor for Similar Requirements in the Future?

INSTRUCTIONS

PURPOSE. The FEMA PA TAC Evaluation Worksheet (TEW) is the primary means through which the Agency will evaluate and document contractor performance under the Public Assistance Technical Assistance Contracts. The information contained within the TEW is gathered on a regular basis and should be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and the Program Specialist assigned to the Task Order. Task Monitors (TM) are responsible for completing TEWs : (1) Prior to exercising an option period; (2) Prior to a FEMA TM transitioning from the respective Task Order Monitoring role; and/or (3) End of the Period of Performance. An informal TEW shall be completed at anytime to document exceptional performance or non-performance issues. The informal TEW information and other submitted TEWs will be included in the TAC performance evaluation created by the COR.

SECTION I. Please complete all required fields in Section I.

Date: Self-explanatory FEMA Office / Region: Self-explanatory Task Monitor's Name: Self-explanatory Telephone Number: Where you can be reached during the Period of Performance Task Performed By: Identify the applicable PA-TAC contractor Contract Number: Identify the applicable Contract Number Task Order (TO) Number: Identify the applicable Task Order Number Disaster Number: Self-explanatory Project Location: Enter the location where the contractor was required to report to (if other than contractor address) Contract Percent Complete: Enter the percent of the contract or order that has been completed at the time the evaluation is being done.

Use data from any Earned Value Management Systems, progress reports, schedules, and payment information, as applicable, to determine the percent complete.

Evaluation Type: Indicate whether the Evaluation is an Interim, or a Final report.

Project Complexity : Difficulty of project being performed.

Project Title: Enter the title of the project, e.g. Feather River Restructuring Project Period of Performance: Select the beginning date and end date for the TO Termination Type: Self-explanatory Brief Description: Enter the TO Description, e.g., Prepare Project Worksheets

SECTION II. Evaluate the Contractor's performance with respect to each rated element. You must have at least one rating assigned.

*If Cost Performance Report (CPR) or Cost/Schedule Status Review (C/SSR) data are available, identify the current percent cost variance to date, the Government's estimated variance at completion (percent), and the cumulative schedule variance (percent). Indicate the cutoff date for the CPR or C/SSR used.

Current Schedule Variance (%):Compute cumulative schedule variance percentage by dividing the Earned Value less Planned Value by Planned Value, and multiply by 100. The formula for the calculation is: [(Earned Value - Planned Value)/Planned Value] x 100. If the schedule variance exceeds 15 percent (positive or negative), briefly discuss in the Assessing Official Narrative the significance of this variance for the contract or order effort in the "Schedule Evaluation Comments" Section.

Current Cost Variance (%): Compute current cost variance percentage by dividing cumulative cost variance to date by the Earned Value and multiply by 100.

Variance at Completion (%): Compute Variance at Completion (VAC) cost percentage by subtracting the Estimate at Completion (EAC) from the Budget at Completion (BAC), dividing the result by the Budget at Completion (BAC) and multiplying by 100. The calculation is VAC=(BAC - EAC)/BAC X 100. The BAC must be the current budget base against which the contractor is performing (including formally established Over Target Baselines (OTB)). If an OTB has been established since the last CPAR, a brief description in the Assessing Official Narrative of the nature and magnitude of the baseline adjustment must be provided. Subsequent CPARs must evaluate cost performance in terms of the revised baseline and reference the CPAR that described the baseline adjustment. For example, "The contract baseline was formally adjusted on (date); see CPAR for (period covered by report) for an explanation."

SECTION III. Provide additional remarks regarding the contractor's performance.

8.2.1.4029.1.523496.503679