J.P-6 Past Performance Rating Form.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.P-6

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING FORM

PAST PERFORMANCE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (To be filled out by the Offeror):

CONTRACTOR NAME:

CONTRACT NUMBER:

ORDER NUMBER (if applicable):

PROJECT TITLE:

PROJECT VALUE:

TOTAL PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING

OPTIONS: (MM/YYYY - MM/YYYY

or MM/YYYY – Present)

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE INFORMATION (To be filled out by the Rater):

NAME:

TITLE:

AGENCY / CUSTOMER:

PHONE:

E-MAIL:

SIGNATURE OF RATER: (Rating must be provided by the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, other Government employee or Corporate Officer/Official of the customer with cognizance over the submitted Project)

For each of the five (5) criteria listed below, the rater must choose one (1) Adjectival Rating by checking the box, as applicable. At a minimum, for any rating that is checked Marginal or Unsatisfactory, please submit additional comments to substantiate the rating. For any rating that is checked “Not Applicable,” please explain why it does not apply.

1. QUALITY OF SERVICE

Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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 subelement contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

☐ Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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.

☐ Not Applicable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

2. SCHEDULE

Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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 subelement contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

☐ Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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.

☐ Not Applicable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

3. COST CONTROL

Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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 subelement contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

☐ Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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.

☐ Not Applicable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4. MANAGEMENT

Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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/customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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 subelement contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

☐ Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or subelement 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.

☐ Not Applicable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

5. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING (Only applicable to Federal Prime Contract Awards)

Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional

Exceeded all statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business(SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.

☐ Very Good

Met all of the statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219- 8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.

☐ Satisfactory

Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/order. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract/order.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.

☐ Marginal Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan.

Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.

☐ Unsatisfactory

Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Had a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.

☐ Not Applicable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: