Attachment 4 - Contractor Performance Evaluation Survey.pdf

Competition Sensitive For Official Use Only Page 1 of 4

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Kimberly Reidy, CODE 2.1C1

SPAWAR CONTRACTS, 4301 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

SAN DIEGO, CA 92110-3127

TO: [Contractor Fill-in] AGENCY: [Contractor Fill-in]

FAX: [Contractor Fill-in] EMAIL: [Contractor Fill-in]

INFORMATION REQUEST

PAST PERFORMANCE

This office is currently in the process of awarding a competitive service contract.

[CONTRACTOR NAME] has provided your name and organization as a reference regarding [CONTRACTOR’S NAME] record of past performance under [CONTRACT NO]. Specifically, we are looking for past performance information regarding the following areas:

a.) Quality of Product or Service - Conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship, accuracy of reports, appropriateness of personnel, and technical excellence;

b.) Cost Control - Within budget, current accurate and complete billings, actual cost/rates reflect closely to negotiated cost/rates, cost efficiency measures, adequate budgetary internal controls;

c.) Schedule - Timeliness of performance, met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical and contractual direction, completed on time, including wrap-up and contract administration, no liquidated damages assessed;

d.) Business Relationships - Effective management, businesslike correspondence, responsive to contract requirements, prompt notification of problems, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, proactive, effective Contractor recommended solutions, timely award and management of subcontracts, effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program;

e.) Customer Satisfaction - Satisfaction of end users with the Contractor’s service;

In order for our team to compile its evaluation, we request that you complete the attached survey form and email it, and any other pertinent information, within ten (10) working days to Joseph.Gonzales1@navy.mil. Any relevant information you have would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor.

Thank you very much!

Kimberly Reidy Contracting Officer

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 4

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

CONTRACTOR NAME: [Contractor Fill-in] CONTRACT NUMBER: [Contractor Fill-in]

EVALUATION PERIOD: [Contractor Fill-in] DELIVERY ORDER NO.:[Contractor Fill-in]

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE:

[Contractor Fill-in] Name (print) Code Phone

Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided.

Please refer to the last page for definitions of “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, and “Not Satisfactory”.

EXCEPTIONAL VERY

GOOD

SATISFACTORY MARGINAL NOT

SATISFACTORY

a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.

(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.

b.) COST CONTROL:

(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.

(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.

(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.

c.) SCHEDULE:

(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.

(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Exceptional” or “Not Satisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation on the attached page.

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 4

CONTINUED

EXCEPTIONAL VERY

GOOD

SATISFACTORY MARGINAL NOT

SATISFACTORY

d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:

(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.

(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.

(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.

(4) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.

(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.

(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.

(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.

e.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

(1) The products/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.

(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the Technical Point of Contact.

(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Exceptional” or “Not Satisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation on the attached page.

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 4

CONTINUED

Past Performance shall be evaluated based on the adjectival ratings described below:

EXCEPTIONAL: Outstanding in all respects, representing the best that could be expected from any contractor.

VERY GOOD: There are few problem areas reported; however, they are not of such magnitude or duration to pose significant risk to the Government. The contractor resolved problem areas quickly and to the satisfaction of the customer.

SATISFACTORY: Some problem areas have been reported and/or the resolution of problem areas, was, in some cases, prolonged.

MARGINAL: The contractor’s past performance did not meet some contractual requirements and resulted in some serious problems, which were not resolved satisfactorily.

NOT SATISFACTORY: The contractor’s past performance did not meet most contractual requirements.

NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: