MUAS for HC RFP Attachment J-19 PPQ.pdf

Attachment J-19 Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation Number: 70Z02323R93130001

Choose a Rating

Choose a Rating

Please provide your assessment of the prospective offeror’s level of past performance on a contract for which you were the reference. Please fill in the below tables and choose the appropriate rating from the drop-down list using the definitions on page two and provide justification for that rating. Prospective offeror or evaluator may fill out page one. Submit the questionnaire by the proposal due date to: Barbara.A.Reithmaier@uscg.mil

1 Contractor Being Evaluated

2 Company/Government Agency Completing the Questionnaire

3 Evaluator Name and Title

4 Evaluator Email and Phone

5 Period of Performance Being Assessed

6 Type of Instrument (e.g., Contract, Purchase Order, Task Order, Other)

7 Pricing Type (e.g., Fixed Price, Time & Material, Cost Reimbursement, Other)

8 Contract Number, Order Number (if applicable), or Reference Number

9 Subcontract Number (if applicable)

10 Contract Award Date

11 Contract Completion Date

12 Follow-on (Yes or No)

13 Total Dollar Value (includes unexercised options; ceiling amount for IDIQ)

14 Current Dollar Value (current obligated amount)

15 Role of Contractor listed in #1 above (if sub, also provide name of prime)

16 Project Title

17 Contract Effort Description (Identify the key requirements and/or type of effort. The description should be detailed enough so that it can be used in determining the relevance of this program or project. Address the complexity of the contract/order effort and the overall technical risk associated with accomplishing the effort. Ensure acronyms are identified. Provide a complete description of the contract/order effort that identifies key technologies, components, subsystems, and requirements. Address annual production quantity. For task/delivery order contracts, state the number of orders issued during the period, the number of orders completed during the period, and the number of orders that remain active.)

mailto:Barbara.A.Reithmaier@uscg.mil

Rating Definition Justification 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

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.

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.

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 weaknesses identified.

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 or were satisfactory.

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.

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.

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).

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 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).

Category and Description Rating (drop down) Justification

Quality of Product or Service Contractor’s conformance to contract/order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship. For example:

Are reports/data accurate? Does the service provided meet the specifications of the contract?

Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards? What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements.

For example: Is the Contractor completing the services in a timely manner? Did the Contractor adequately schedule the work?

Has the Contractor met administrative milestone dates?

Has the Contractor met physical milestone dates specified by contract, or agreed to, in the project schedule? If the schedule has slipped through the Contractor’s fault or negligence, has the Contractor taken appropriate corrective action of its own volition? Has the Contractor furnished all required deliverables on or ahead of schedule?

Please continue on the next page

Category and Description Rating (drop down) Justification

Management. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, personnel. Did the contractor support personnel so they were able to work effectively?

If a person did not perform well, what action was taken by the contractor to correct this?

Regulatory Compliance Consider failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions, late or nonpayment to subcontractors, trafficking violations, tax delinquency, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, suspension and debarments.

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental, safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract terms and conditions.

Given what I know today, I recommend them for similar requirements.