5_-_Past_Performance_Customer_Satisfaction_Survey.docx

SAQMMA16R0014 (“PTS”) SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 5

For Proposal and Evaluation Purposes Only To be Removed Upon Award

PAST PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

INTRODUCTION: The United States Department of State (DOS) is currently conducting a competitive procurement for its Protective Technology Services requirement (Request for Proposals no. SAQMMA16R0014), for which the prospective offeror [Offeror to insert name of company] has been requested to identify Government agencies or other customers with whom it is currently or has been recently under contract, to serve as potential references on its past performance record. You are being asked to complete this survey. You may also be contacted by a DOS procurement official to arrange a telephone interview, using the survey as the focal point of the interview. To ensure frank and open evaluations and expressions of opinions by evaluators, all parties are advised that the identity of respondents completing the survey will be held in confidence and will not be released or disclosed to the contractor or outside the Government.

PART I - CONTRACT INFORMATION

a. Contractor:

b. Customer Name (Federal Agency or Other):

c. Technical Point of Contact Information

i. Name:

ii. Telephone Number:

iii. Facsimile Number:

iv. E-mail Address:

v. Mailing Address:

vi. Position Title/Grade:

d. Contract Number:

e. Type of Contract

i. Negotiated or Sealed Bidding:

ii. Competitive or Non-Competitive:

iii. Firm-Fixed-Price, Cost-Plus, Time-and-Materials/Labor Hour, Hybrid, or Other:

iv. Indefinite Quantity, Requirements, or neither:

f. Contract Period of Performance:

h. Initial Contract Value: $

i. Current (or Completed) Contract Value: $

j. Brief Description of the Contract Requirement:

PART II - PAST PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION EVALUATION

NOTE REGARDING CPARS: If you are a Government customer and there is a past performance record for this contract in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), please state in Part I Box j above that a CPARS record is available through the Past Performance Information retrieval System, (PPRIS) and DO NOT COMPLETE this Part II. The DOS will rely on the ratings established in the record in CPARS for its past performance evaluation. In the event you provide information below that conflicts with information in the record in CPARS, the DOS will rely only on the CPARS information.

Contractor Performance Rating: Mark the appropriate block which corresponds to the performance rating. See below for rating definitions.

Factor Rating

QUALITY

SCHEDULE

COST CONTROL

(N/A for fixed-price contracts)

MANAGEMENT

SMALL BUSINESS

(N/A for small business awardees)

REGULATORY

Evaluation Ratings Definitions

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 weaknesses identified.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Evaluate each area based on the following criteria:

Each area assessment must be based on objective data that will be provided in the narrative. Facts to support specific areas of evaluation must be requested from the contracting officer and other government specialists familiar with the Contractor's performance on the contract under review. Such specialists may, for example include the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for the program and may also, be from engineering, manufacturing, quality, logistics (including provisioning), contract administration services, maintenance, security, etc.

The amount of risk inherent in the effort should be recognized as a significant factor and taken into account when assessing the Contractor's performance. When a Contractor identifies significant technical risk and takes action to abate those risks, the effectiveness of these actions should be included in the narrative supporting the evaluation ratings.

The survey is designed to assess prime Contractor performance. However, in those evaluation areas where subcontractor actions have significantly influenced the prime Contractor's performance in a negative or positive way, record the subcontractor actions in the narrative.

Evaluate all areas which pertain to the contract under evaluation, unless they are not applicable - "N/A".

The evaluator should use customary industry quantitative measures where they are applicable if the contract is for commercial products.

Performance Assessment Narrative

QUALITY: For Systems contracts or orders, consider the following aspects of Contractor performance:

Product Performance. Assess the achieved product performance relative to performance parameters required by the contract or order.

Systems Engineering. Assess the Contractor's effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated system design solution.

Areas of focus should be: the planning and control of technical program tasks; the quality and adequacy of the engineering support provided throughout all phases of contract or order execution; the integration of the engineering specialties; management of interfaces; interoperability, and; the management of a totally integrated effort of all engineering concerns to meet cost, technical performance, and schedule objectives.

System engineering activities ensure that integration of these engineering concerns is addressed up-front and early in the design or development process. The evaluation should cover these disciplines: systems architecture; design; manufacturing; integration and support; configuration control; documentation, and; test and evaluation.

The evaluation for test and evaluation should consider successes, problems, and/or failures in developing test and evaluation objectives; planning (ground, air, or sea) test, simulations and/or demonstrations; in accomplishing those objectives and on the timeliness of coordination and feedback of the test results (simulations or demonstrations) into the design and/or manufacturing process.

Other activities include producibility engineering, logistics support analysis, supportability considerations (maintenance personnel and skills availability, or work-hour constraints, operating and cost constraints, allowable downtime, turn-around-time to service and maintain the system, and standardization requirements), survivability, human factors, reliability, quality, maintainability, availability, inspectability, etc.

The evaluation of systems engineering needs to remain flexible to allow the evaluator to account for program-unique technical concerns, and to allow for the changing systems engineering environment as a program moves through the program phases, e.g., Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production.

Software Engineering. Assess the Contractor’s success in meeting contract or order requirements for all applicable software engineering-based activities and processes.

Software engineering activities include, as appropriate: software development (design, code, and unit test); application of reuse, COTS, and other non-developmental software components; integration (including software component integration, system integration and test, and acceptance test support); and sustainment. Software processes include, for example: software size, effort, and schedule estimation; requirements analysis, development, and management; software configuration management; software risk identification and management; metrics collection and analysis, technical reviews, decision analysis, and software quality assurance and control, each as they specifically address software engineering activities.

Consider the Contractor’s success with respect to:

- Planning a software development, integration, and testing effort that includes compatible cost, schedule, and performance baselines

- Delivering expected software driven capabilities on cost and on schedule

- Effective software metrics collection/analysis and status monitoring or reporting that provide the software visibility necessary to identify timely corrective actions and appropriately execute them

- Staffing with the software knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to execute the contract or order across the lifecycle; timely assignment of the appropriate numbers of software staff

- Awareness and control of software size and stability to enable tracking and allowing growth according to vetted enhancements vice scope creep

- Effective testing and integration of developed software within the larger system test and evaluation effort

- Effective processes to acquire, integrate, and test commercial and/or government off-the-shelf (COTS/GOTS) software and to achieve planned software reuse

- Achieving software assurance

- Consistent application of documented software engineering and management processes, including technical reviews, in alignment with contract or order requirements Logistics Support. Assess the success of the Contractor's performance in accomplishing logistics planning. For example: maintenance planning; manpower and personnel; supply support; support equipment; technical provisioning data; training and support; computer resources support; facilities; packaging, handling, storage and transportation; design interface; the contractor's performance of logistics support analysis activities, and the Contractor's ability to successfully support fielded equipment. When the contract or order requires technical and/or engineering data deliverables, the cognizant cataloging and/or standardization activity comments should be solicited.

Product Assurance. Assess how successfully the Contractor meets program quality objectives (e.g., producibility, reliability, maintainability, inspectability, testability, and system safety, and controls the overall manufacturing process). The Project Manager or Contracting Officer must be flexible in how contractor success is measured (e.g., data from design test or operational testing successes, field reliability and maintainability and failure reports, user comments and acceptance rates, improved subcontractor and vendor quality and scrap and rework rates). These quantitative indicators may be useful later, for example, in source selection evaluations, in demonstrating continuous improvement, quality and reliability leadership that reflects progress in total quality management. Assess the Contractor's control of the overall manufacturing process to include material control, shop floor planning and control, status and control, factory floor optimization, factory design, and factory performance.

Other Technical Performance. Assess all the other technical activity critical to successful contract or order performance. Identify any additional evaluation aspects that are unique to the contract or order, or that cannot be captured in another sub-element.

For Non-Systems contracts or orders, consider the following aspects of Contractor performance:

Assess the Contractor’s conformance to contract or order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, information on the following:

- Are reports and data accurate?

- Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract or order?

- 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?

For Operations Support: Assess how successfully the Contractor meets program or project quality objectives such as producibility, reliability, maintainability and inspectability. The Assessing Official must be flexible in how contractor success is measured; (e.g., using data from field reliability and maintainability and failure reports, user comments and acceptance rates, and scrap and rework rates). These quantitative indicators may be useful later, for example, in source selection evaluations, in demonstrating continuous improvement, quality and reliability leadership that reflects progress in total quality management. Assess the Contractor’s control of the overall production process to include material control, shop planning and control, and status.

For Architect-Engineer contracts or orders, consider the following aspects of Contractor performance:

Quality reflects the Contractor’s management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. Questions which should be addressed are as follows: Has a quality product been provided? Specifically, describe the quality, and the Contractor’s quality control system responsible for it. For example:

- Ability to maintain quality control

- Ability to address and review comments

- Independent Technical Review

- Whether plans are coordinated with specifications

- Coordination between disciplines

- Compliance with design criteria To support the assigned rating, the Assessing Official Comments should contain sufficient comments, based on supporting documentation, and include successes and failures, as well as specific corrective actions, as appropriate.

For Construction contracts or orders, consider the following aspects of Contractor performance:

Quality reflects the Contractor’s management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. Questions which should be addressed are as follows: Has a quality product been provided? Specifically describe the Contractor’s quality control system responsible for it. For example:

- Ability to maintain quality control

- Performance of accessory testing

- Implementation of 3-phase inspection process

- CQC (Contractor Quality Control) documentation

- Identification and correction of deficient work

- Reviews of materials and shop drawings

- Whether there was incorporation of unspecified materials To support the assigned rating, the Assessing Official Comments should contain sufficient comments, based on supporting documentation, and include successes and failures, as well as specific corrective actions, as appropriate.

Narrative:

SCHEDULE: Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

This evaluation of the Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the Contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to, or affect, the schedule variance. Also, address the significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of the Contractor's corrective actions. This element applies to contract or order closeout activities, as well as contract or order performance. Instances of adverse actions, such as the evaluation of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices, are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract or order schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation.

Questions to consider include the following:

- Is the Contractor completing the design/engineering services activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as meeting all scheduled milestones in the design process.

- 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?

- Is the Contractor completing the construction activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as physical construction activities, such as submittal of a management response to Request for Proposal (RFPs), etc.

- Has the Contractor furnished updated project schedules on a timely basis?

Compute cumulative schedule variance percentage by dividing the Earned Value less Planned Value by Planned Value, and multiply by 100. The formula for the calculation is: [(Earned Value - Planned Value)/Planned Value] x 100. If the schedule variance exceeds 15 percent (positive or negative), briefly discuss in the Assessing Official Narrative the significance of this variance for the contract or order effort.

For additional information on Variance, see the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard for Earned Value Management Systems, and the Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide.

Narrative:

COST: (Not required for Fixed Price type contracts or orders). Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract or order cost. If the Contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and Contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts or orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the Contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources, in each work effort should be assessed. Include, as applicable, the following information:

- Does the Contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)?

- Did the Contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings?

- Were billings current, accurate and complete?

- Are the Contractor’s budgetary internal controls adequate?

- Has the Contractor provided a design that can be constructed with the available funds?

- Has the Contractor notified the Government and taken necessary corrective actions when the cost estimate exceeds available funds?

Evaluation information regarding performance under an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA), including letter contracts and actions where price has not yet been negotiated, shall be included in the annual evaluation. If the final negotiated contract or order type is not a cost-type, cost information for the period the UCA was in effect shall be included under the Cost Control element. If the final negotiated contract or order type is a cost-type, cost information for the entire period of performance shall be included under the Cost Control rating element. The narrative shall fully explain the Contractor’s performance during the UCA, including definitization of the contract/order. The Contractor’s performance under the UCA shall be separately identified but considered in the overall annual ratings.

If Cost Performance Report (CPR) or Cost/Schedule Status Review (C/SSR) data are available, identify the current percent cost variance to date, the Government's estimated completion cost variance (percent), and the cumulative schedule variance (percent). Indicate the cut-off date for the CPR or C/SSR used. Compute current cost variance percentage by dividing cumulative cost variance to date (column 11 of the CPR, column 6 of the C/SSR) by the Earned Value, and multiply by 100.

Compute Variance at Completion (VAC) cost percentage by subtracting the Budget at Completion (BAC) from the Estimate at Completion (EAC), and multiply by 100. The formula for the calculation is: [VAC=(BAC - EAC)] x 100. The BAC must be the current budget base against which the contractor is performing (including formally established Over Target Baselines (OTB)). If an OTB has been established since the last CPAR, a brief description in the Assessing Official Narrative of the nature and magnitude of the baseline adjustment must be provided. Subsequent CPARs must evaluate cost performance in terms of the revised baseline, and reference the CPAR that described the baseline adjustment. For example, "The contract baseline was formally adjusted on (date); see CPAR for (period covered by report) for an explanation."

For additional information on Variance, see the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard for Earned Value Management Systems, and the Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide.

Narrative:

N/A -- FFP

MANAGEMENT: Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract or 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. Include, as applicable, information on the following:

- Is the Contractor oriented toward the customer?

- Is interaction between the Contractor and the Government satisfactory, or does it need improvement?

- Include the adequacy of the Contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the Contractor’s management of Government Furnished Property (GFP) if a substantial amount of GFP has been provided to the Contractor under the contract or order.

- Address the timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontract costs. Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems, and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.

- Assess the Prime Contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the Contractor’s team. Are the Contractor’s management, on-site, and home office personnel exhibiting the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the work? If not, describe and relate to other rated elements.

Consider the following aspects of performance:

Management Responsiveness. Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), or other UCAs), the Contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction. Consider the Contractor’s responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract or order requirements during the period covered by the report.

Subcontract Management. Assess the Contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts.

- Assess the Prime Contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the Contractor’s team. - Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems, and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall Prime Contractor performance.

- Consider efforts taken to ensure prompt subcontractor payment.

- Assess the Prime Contractor’s managing of subcontractors to ensure compliance with labor and safety standards at the subcontract level.

- If the contract is set-aside for small business, assess the Contractor’s compliance with any limitations on subcontracting.

Program Management and Other Management. Assess the extent to which the Contractor: discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract or order; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks and actions required by contract or order; communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk management practices, especially the ability to identify risks, and to formulate and implement risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other areas that are unique to the contract or order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere under the Management element.

Integration and coordination of activities should reflect those required by the Integrated Master Plan or Schedule. Also consider the adequacy of the Contractor’s mechanisms for tracking contract or order compliance, recording changes to planning documentation and management of cost and schedule control system, and internal controls, as well as the Contractor’s performance relative to management of data collection, recording, and distribution as required by the contract or order.

Management of Key Personnel (Applicable when the contract/order contains a Key Personnel clause). Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel. For example:

- How well did the contractor match the qualifications of the key position, as described in the contract/order, with the person who filled the key position?

- Did the contractor support key personnel so they were able to work effectively?

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

- If a replacement of a key person was necessary, did the replacement meet or exceed the qualifications of the position as described in the contract or order schedule?

Narrative:

SMALL BUSINESS: Utilization of Small Business FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the Small Business Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and ANCs and Indian Tribes (that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses or Small Businesses) to participate in contract or order performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract or order.

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract or order relating to Small Business participation (including FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Businesses, and FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when required). Assess any small business participation goals which are stated separately in the contract or order. Assess achievement on each individual goal stated within the contract or order, or subcontracting plan, including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.

It may be necessary to seek input from the Small Business specialist or Contracting Officer in regards to the Contractor’s compliance with these criteria. For DoD, in cases where the Contractor has a comprehensive subcontracting plan, request DCMA Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Manager to provide input including any program specific performance information.

For contracts or orders subject to a commercial subcontracting plan, the Utilization of Small Business factor should be rated as Satisfactory as long as an approved plan remains in place. In the event that liquidated damages have been assessed by the Contracting Officer who approved the commercial subcontracting plan, the Utilization of Small Business area must be rated as Unsatisfactory (see FAR 19.705-7(h)).

This area must be rated for all contracts and task orders that contain a small business subcontracting goal.

Ratings will be in accordance with definitions described in Attachment 2 of the Guidance for CPARS document, Evaluation Ratings Definitions for The Small Business Evaluation Factor when 52.219-9 is used.

Evaluations of the Utilization of Small Business are required for contracts and orders placed against Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs), Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPAs), or Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs), and Multiple Agency Contracts (MACs) if a subcontracting plan is required. Evaluations of Utilization of Small Business for single-agency task orders and delivery orders are required when the Contracting Officer determines, in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.1502(d), that it is more appropriate to complete a CPAR on each task or delivery order rather than completing a consolidated CPAR for the indefinite delivery contract (IDQ), and each exercised option year period. Execution of any subcontracting plan may be addressed in the narrative section for the Assessing Official.

Although FAR 19.705-2(e) states a contract may have no more than one subcontracting plan, performance against small business utilization may be more appropriately managed through individual task orders to achieve overall contract small business subcontracting goals as indicated in preceding paragraph.

Although Paragraph 2.1.1 of the Guidance for CPARS document requires a CPAR to be completed for each order placed against multi-agency indefinite delivery vehicle (IDV), the subcontracting utilization assessment must be completed by the agency that awarded the contract unless the contract ordering instructions allow for separate small business subcontracting goals to be incorporated into each order. Multi-agency IDVs include federal Supply Schedules (FSS), Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWAC), and Multiple Agency Contracts (MAC).

(Reference FAR 42.1503 Table 42-2) (For the Small Business Evaluation Factor, when 52.219-9 is used) Rating: Exceptional Definition: 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 or 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 or order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events, and state how these events were of benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative work directly related to the contract. Opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Rating: Very Good Definition: 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 or 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.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event, and state how it was a benefit to small business utilization. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative opportunities to participate as subcontractors for work directly related to the contract. Opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Rating: Satisfactory Definition: 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 or order. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract or order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor has addressed, or taken corrective action upon. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract or order.

Rating: Marginal Definition: 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 or 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.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency.

Rating: Unsatisfactory Definition: Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract or 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 was generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how these events impacted small business utilization. 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 actions taken by the Government to notify the Contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the Contracting Officer must consider whether the Contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9, and follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan.

NOTE 1: Generally, zero percent is not a goal unless the Contracting Officer determined when negotiating the subcontracting plan that no subcontracting opportunities exist in a particular socio-economic category. In such cases, the Contractor shall be considered to have met the goal for any socio-economic category where the goal negotiated in the plan was zero.

Narrative:

N/A –8(a) Contract

REGULATORY: Regulatory Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract or order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental (example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), safety, and labor regulations, as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract. Consider questions such as the following:

- Has the Contractor complied with all contract clauses and reporting requirements (e.g., FAPIIS, FAR Subsection 9.104-6, FAR Clause 52.209-9)?

- Has the Contractor complied with Cost Accounting Standards and disclosure statements (FAR Subpart 30.2, FAR Clauses 52.230-2, 52.230-3, 52.230-4, 52.230-5, 52.230-6)?

- Has the Contractor complied with the reporting requirements relating to recovered material content utilized in contract performance (see FAR Subpart 23.4)?

- Has the Contractor complied with contractual safety requirements and labor laws (see FAR Subsection 22.407, FAR Clauses 52.222-4, 52.222-34, 52.222-20)?

- Perform engineering surveillance to assess compliance with contractual terms for schedule, cost, and technical performance in the areas of design, development, and production (FAR Subpart 42.302).

- Has the Contractor complied with Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data (see FAR Subpart 23.3, FAR Clauses 52.223-3)?

- Has the Contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements requiring the delivery or use of environmentally preferable products, energy-efficient products, products containing recovered materials, and biobased products (FAR Subparts 23.2, 23.4, 23.7)? Monitor the Contractor's environmental practices for adverse impact on contract performance or contract cost, and for compliance with environmental requirements specified in the contract.

- Has the Contractor implemented an effective safety program; one which minimizes/mitigates potential accidents (FAR Subsection 36.513, FAR Clause 52.236-13)?

- Is the Contractor complying with affirmative action and EEO compliance requirements (see FAR Subpart 22.8, FAR Clauses 52.222-26, 52.222-27)?

- Has the Contractor complied with combating trafficking in persons (see FAR Subpart 22.17, FAR Clause 52.222-50)?

For compliance with environmental regulations, consider the following:

Ensuring sustainable acquisition compliance in federal contracts requires the evaluation of contractor performance inclusive of all requirements from the contract SOW/PWS; contract clauses; and other applicable contract terms and conditions. The GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool is a one-stop online resource that provides useful information regarding sustainability regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the information contained in the chart below regarding the federal green programs and the applicable legal basis/regulation may be useful to the Assessing Official in determining how to evaluate the Contractor’s performance in these areas.

For example, if evaluating contractor performance on a construction contract to retrofit plumbing, the evaluator should check the SOW, the Sustainable Facilities Tool, and the chart below. The SOW most likely specified WaterSense products. As such, the evaluator should check the WaterSense information from the Sustainable Facilities Tool and the chart below to ensure that the various products used in support of the contract meet the WaterSense criteria.

Program: Alternative Fuel Vehicles or Alternative Fuels Legal Basis or Regulation: Energy Policy Act; E.O. Sec. 701 of Energy Policy Act of 2005, and; EOs 13423 and 13514 Links to more info: http://energy.gov/eere/femp/articles/energy-policy-act-2005, http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/practices/eo13423.htm, http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/practices/eo13514.htm, www.epa.gov/greeningepa/greenfleet Program: Biobased Content; Biobased Products Legal Basis or Regulation: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002 Farm Bill), Section 9002, E.O. 13423, The 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act added new biobased product reporting requirements.

Links to more info: http://www.biopreferred.gov/Biobased_Products.aspx, http://awic.nal.usda.gov/public-law-110-246-food-conservation-and-energy-act-2008 Program: Chemicals Legal Basis or Regulation: Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 Links to more info: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/p2policy/act1990.htm Program: Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines; Recycled Content Products Legal Basis or Regulation: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 6002, E.O. 13423 Links to more info: www.epa.gov/cpg Program: Energy STAR and Energy Efficient Products Legal Basis or Regulation: Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005, and; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Links to more info: www.energystar.gov Program: ENERGY STAR and FEMP-designated products, and Low Stand-by Devices Legal Basis or Regulation: Energy Policy Act; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; E.O. 13423, 13514, and 13221 Links to more info: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/fedfleet_management.html Program: EPEAT Legal Basis or Regulation: E.O. 13514 and 13423, FAR Part 23 Links to more info: http://ww2.epeat.net/searchoptions.aspx, http://ww2.epeat.net/searchoptions.aspx Program: Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP) Legal Basis or Regulation: Assists in the implementation of The FAR; Environmentally Sound Products requires Executive agencies to identify and purchase environmentally preferable products and services Links to more info: www.epa.gov/epp, http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/index.htm, http://www.epa.gov/epp/index.htm, http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/plants/pdfs/cafeteriaware.pdf, http://www.biopreferred.gov/, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenmeetings/, Program: Low or non-toxic or non-hazardous chemicals Legal Basis or Regulation: n/a Links to more info: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/index.htm, www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/wastemin/priority.htm Program: Non-ozone Depleting Substances Legal Basis or Regulation: Clean Air Act, E.O. 13423 Links to more info: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html Program: Water Efficient Products, equipment, and programs that decrease indoor and outdoor nonagricultural water use (i.e., WaterSense) Legal Basis or Regulation: Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005 Links to more info: www.epa.gov/watersense, http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act, http://www.epa.gov/watersense/products/index.html

Narrative:

OVERALL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY: A factual, detailed narrative is required for all evaluations regardless of rating (e.g., even Satisfactory ratings require narrative support). Cross-reference the comments in the Assessing Official Narrative to their corresponding evaluation area. Each detailed narrative statement in support of the area evaluation must contain clear and concise objective information that accurately reflects the Contractor’s performance under the contract or order. It is also important for the information reported to include current, accurate, and complete statements about the Contractor’s performance because this information will be used to assist, inform, and influence future source selection and award decisions. An exceptional cost performance evaluation could, for example, cite the current underrun dollar value and estimate at completion. A marginal evaluation could, for example, be supported by information concerning personnel changes or schedule delinquency rate. Key personnel familiar with the effort may have been replaced by less experienced personnel. Sources of the data used by the Assessing Official for the evaluation may include: operational test and evaluation results; technical interchange meetings; production readiness reviews; earned contract or order incentives; award fee evaluations; customer or field surveys; or evaluation of Contractor reports. The Contracting Officer should be contacted to ensure that all applicable data has been incorporated. The Assessing Official Comments may include up to 24,000 characters per evaluation area in the CPARS AIS.

The Assessing Official must select the applicable choice to the following statement after the Assessing Official Comments: “Given what I know today about the Contractor's ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order's most significant requirements, I (would or would not) recommend them for similar requirements in the future."

Narrative: