Past Performance Cover-Survey Sheet- Attachment A.pdf

Attachment A

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY COVER SHEET

FOR SOLICITATION NO. SP4705-21-R-7321

FOR THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)

HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX (HQC)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) AND DIVERSITY OFFICE

PROVISION OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL)

FOR Ad-Hoc INTERPRETING SERVICES

Name of offeror questionnaire is being completed for (Complete as Applicable):

Contractor: _____________________________________________

Name of organization completing questionnaire: __________________________

Contract Number: ____________________________

Name, title and phone number of people completing questionnaire: _____________

Length of time your organization has been involved with the offeror: ______________

SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE COVER SHEET AND SURVEY TO

REBECCA LUCENA, AT REBECCA.LUCENA@DLA.MIL, and ANDRE D.

DESIMA, AT ANDRE.DESIMA@DLA.MIL.

BY: See Specified Proposal Submission Date at Block 8 of the DD 1449 mailto:REBECCA.LUCENA@DLA.MIL mailto:ANDRE.DESIMA@DLA.MIL

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY RATING SHEET

FOR SOLICITATION NO. SP4705-21-R-7321

FOR THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)

HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX (HQC)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) AND DIVERSITY OFFICE

PROVISION OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL)

FOR Ad-Hoc INTERPRETING SERVICES

RATING SCALE

Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. 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, then you should mark “NA”.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Excellent - The offeror’s performance was consistently superior. The contractual performance was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective.

action taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Good - The offeror’s performance was better than average, and you would.

willingly do business with the offeror again. The contractual performance was.

accomplished with minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Neutral - No record exists.

Average - The offeror’s performance was satisfactory and consideration would take part in awarding a contract to the offeror again. The contractual performance reflects a problem for which the contractor has not yet implemented corrective actions.

Poor - The offeror’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and you would not do.

business with the offeror again under any circumstances. The contractual performance being assessed contains problems for which the contractor ‘s corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Poor”, please provide a brief explanation in the comments section of the survey.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

POOR

AVERAGE

NEUTRAL

GOOD

EXCELLENT

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 price/costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated price/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.

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 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised.

of technical, cost, and schedule issues.

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

POOR

AVERAGE

NEUTRAL

GOOD

EXCELLENT

(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, 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.

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 TPOC.

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

f.) KEY PERSONNEL:

(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.

(2) The Contractor proposed qualified personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

(3) The Contractor consistently followed the personnel.

qualification requirements in accordance with the contract.

COMMENTS:

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY RATING SHEET