DLIW_Performance Assessment Questionnaire.pdf

APPENDIX D

Performance Assessment

Performance Assessment Questionnaire – Cover Letter

(Insert Command Letterhead)

(Insert Date)

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) (Insert Solicitation Number)

Dear Sir/Ma’am, The US Army (insert command) is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on the subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on recent and relevant federal, state, or local government or commercial contracts as compared to the North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] (insert NAICS). You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation.

Please complete the enclosure and return to the (insert Contracting Office and address), no later than 15 days after receipt of request or (insert date), whichever occurs first. Submit your completed questionnaire to (insert Contracting Officer/Specialist’s email address).

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to the undersigned at (insert telephone number and/or email address).

Sincerely, (Insert name) Contracting Officer

Performance Assessment Questionnaire

[Questionnaire should include questions to assess compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9.]

Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does [and/or notify the Contracting Officer]. Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter within the stated timeframe.

Rating Definitions:

Substantial Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The offeror has been highly successfully in performing the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The offeror has successfully performed the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions, or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective. The offeror has had little success performing the required effort.

No Confidence: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective. The offeror has not successfully performed the required effort.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

Total Contract Value:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent) *Note: rationale is required for each response.

Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence

Rationale:

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

Comments:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

Point of Contact (Name):

Telephone Number:

Organization:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Performance Assessment Questionnaire – Telephone Interview

Contractor: Contract No.:

Subcontract No. (if applicable):

POC: Title:

(Name) (E.G. PCO/ACO/TM)

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail & Facsimile No.)

If conducting a telephone interview:

“Hello, I am . I am calling in reference to Contract with a company called . My questions will pertain to the contractor’s record of past, which is defined as within the past three years, and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. A summary of this discussion may be sent to you for your records.

Please provide examples and/or explanations, and utilize the following ratings:

Rating Definitions:

Substantial Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The offeror has been highly successfully in performing the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The offeror has successfully performed the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective. The offeror has had little success performing the required effort.

No Confidence: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective. The offeror has not successfully performed the required effort.

PART I. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

*Note: rationale is required for each response.

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

Comments:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Point of Contact (Name):

Telephone Number:

Organization:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

PART II. RECORD OF INTERVIEW (To be completed by PPT Member)

( ) Discussed recentness and relevance of information ( ) Read summary to person contacted Date:

( ) Sent copy to person contacted Date:

PPT Member Signature Typed or Printed Name

Telephone Fax

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Performance Assessment Questionnaire – Telephone

Interview Summary Memorandum

(Insert Contracting Office)

MEMORANDUM FOR (insert Contractor name)

SUBJECT: Performance Assessment Telephone Interview Report

1. Enclosed is a summary of your telephone conversation, (insert date), with a member of a Past Performance Team at this Command.

2. Please review and verify the accuracy of this report and e-mail or fax it to my point of contact listed below by (insert date). If we do not receive your response by the date indicated above, we will consider the summary of the discussion official.

3. We would like to thank you in advance for your time and assistance regarding this acquisition. If you have any questions or comments, please contact: (Insert name, title, phone number, email address, fax number).

(Insert name)

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Encl

Performance Confidence Assessment – Individual Report

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RFP No.:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

SUBFACTOR: PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating, e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Neutral Confidence) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.)

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Interim: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

RATIONALE: (Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions.

The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance).

Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings. Identify Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed) SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE (Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.)

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE (Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.)

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE (No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.)

LIMITED CONFIDENCE (Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.)

NO CONFIDENCE (Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.)

EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each (INSERT RATING)

Performance Confidence Assessment – Team

Evaluation Consensus

OFFEROR: DATE:

CONSENSUS

AGREEMENT

The Past Performance Evaluation Team has completed the interview and assessment process for the above named offeror. This assessment takes into consideration the quality/ relevance of the Offeror’s performance for projects/references provided as well as information as documented from any other sources considered.

A confidence assessment rating of has been assigned to the aforementioned offeror.

The following is a summarization of the team’s findings:

Team Member Signature Team Member Signature