J.4 CPARS Worksheet.pdf

Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) Survey

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE” – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Contract No. Contractor Date of Assessment

Name of Assessor Assessor Phone Number Assessor E-mail Address

Purpose of Survey Period of Performance Start Date: Period of Performance End Date

See Table 42-1 on Page 4 for Rating Definitions and Notes in accordance with FAR 42.1503.

Select a rating from the pull down menus below and provide a detailed justification for each assigned rating.

Use Page 3 as a Continuation Sheet for additional space for rating justifications or other information.

Quality Rating Consider conformance to contract requirements and standards of commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety standards; meeting contract specifications and performance requirements, the accuracy of reports and data, process effectiveness, staff knowledge and skills, the degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems during performance, maintaining quality control, correction of deficient work, coordination between disciplines, quality of final product and/or service, etc.

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

Schedule Rating Consider the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of contract deliverables (services, reports, etc.), adequacy of scheduling the work, administrative milestone dates, furnishing deliverables on or ahead of schedule, updating project schedules on a timely basis, schedule slip through contractor's negligence, etc

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE” – See FAR 2.101 and 3

Assessor's Signature

Cost Control Rating / Value Added Services Consider the currency, accuracy, and completeness of contractor invoicing, efforts to provide cost savings or value added services such as suggesting forecasting tools, encouraging enrollment in a demand response program, proposing energy savings initiatives, etc.

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE” – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Management Rating Consider the interaction between the Contractor and the Government and the interaction and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract - customer orientation, problem identification and solving, management of government furnished property; and the planning, organizing and otherwise managing of the work, etc.

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

Regulatory Compliance:

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to applicable regulations and codes including contract clauses, reporting requirements, quality assurance surveillance plans; and FAPIIS reporting, financial reporting, environmental reporting, safety requirements, standard and/or unique specific contract requirements), etc.

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

Given what you know about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract requirements, would you recommend the contractor for similar requirements in the future?

Continuation Sheet

Please indicate the Rating area associated with any additional comments.

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE” – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Utilization of Small Business: (For EERE Use Only) Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participatio

Provide justification to substantiate rating.

ESRS Report Date

FAR 42.1503 - Procedures Table 42-1 - Evaluation Rating Definitions

Rating and Definition Notes

EXCEPTIONAL: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner.

The contractual performance of the element or sub element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

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. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

There should have been no significant weakness identified.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.

A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category 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 the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to change the evaluation status

Note 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.