RFP_ATT_1_PARCS_Performance_Questionnaire_Jun_26_15.pdf

ATTTACHMENT #1

SUBJECT: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE IN REFERENCE TO NRC SOLICITATION NRC-HQ-60- 15-R-0009 ENTITLED "Contractor Support for the PARCS Code Suite”

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently conducting proposal evaluations for a contract to provide the NRC with technical assistance in provide for contractor support for the PARCS software code suite.

Our primary source of information for this part of the evaluation will come from the past performance references that the offerors have provided us. The NRC evaluation panel must ensure that offerors have both relevant and successful past performance in performing work of a comparable nature and complexity to the NRC’s requirement.

Accordingly, we ask that you complete the enclosed past performance survey and return it to the originator, so that it may be sent in as part of their proposal submission package which is due on July 27, 2015, 5:00 PM EST.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me on (301) 415-0689, or contact me at mark.thompson@nrc.gov.

RATING SCALE

Please apply the following adjectival ratings to the factors below.

5 – Exceptional: Performance exceeded many of the contractual requirements. Based on the contractor’s performance record, there is a very high probability of success and essentially no risk that this contractor would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements.

4 – Very Good: Performance exceeded some of the contractual requirements. Based on the contractor’s performance record, there is a high probability of success and very little risk that this contractor would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements.

3 – Satisfactory: Performance met contractual requirements. Based on the contractor’s performance record, there is a moderate probability of success and some potential risk that this contractor would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements.

2 – Marginal: Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. Based on the contractor’s performance record, there is a low probability of success and substantial risk that this contractor would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements.

1 – Unsatisfactory: Performance did not meet contractual requirements. Based on the contractor’s performance record, the probability of success is very low and the degree of risk is unacceptably high.

N/A – Neutral: Little or no relevant information was available for evaluation. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, please mark “NA”.

Contractor Past Performance Evaluation Contract Number (& Task Order Number if Applicable):

Evaluation Period:

1. (OFFEROR MUST FILL OUT THIS BLOCK)

Offeror Representative Name & Position:

Offeror Name:

Offeror Address:

Offeror Representative Telephone Number:

Offeror Representative Email Address:

2. (EVALUATOR MUST FILL OUT THIS BLOCK)

Evaluator Representative Name & Position:

Evaluator Name:

Evaluator Address:

Evaluator Representative Telephone Number:

Evaluator Representative Email Address:

Approximate length of time your organization has been involved with the Offeror:

3. Title or Brief Description of Contract:

4. EVALUATOR MUST FILL OUT BLOCKS 4a-4h, as appropriate.

Please provide an adjectival ranking as well as a comment in the boxes below.

4a. Technical Performance (Quality of Product/ Service).

Provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.

Comments

5 - Exceptional 4 - Very Good 3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

4b. Schedule/Timeliness.

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

3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

4c. Cost Control.

Performed the effort within the estimated cost/price / submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis. The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.

3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

4d. Business Relations/ Customer Satisfaction.

Demonstrated effective management over the effort performed. Maintained effective communications with your organization regarding issues of technical, cost, and schedule, and presented information in a clear and businesslike manner.

Comments 5 - Exceptional 4 - Very Good 3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

Contractor Past Performance Evaluation Contract Number (& Task Order Number if Applicable):

Evaluation Period:

4e. Management of Personnel (if applicable).

Comments 5 - Exceptional 4 - Very Good 3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

4f. Utilization of Small Business (complete only if the contract contains a subcontracting plan).

Demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program (if applicable)

Comments 5 - Exceptional 4 - Very Good 3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal 1 – Unsatisfactory

N/A - Neutral

4g.

Additional Comments (if applicable).

4h.

Would you select this firm again? Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform what they promised in the contract, I (select one of the phrases below) award to them today given that I had a choice.

a. Definitely would

b. Probably would

c. Might or might not

d. Probably would not

e. Definitely would not

5.

Evaluator Representative’s Signature: ____________________________________ Date: