52.212-1_and_52.212-2_Addendum.pdf

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 This section provides general guidance as well as specific instructions on the format and content of an offerors submissions. The offeror’s submission must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete proposal will be considered non-compliant with this solicitation and will not be evaluated for award. For the purposes of this solicitation, non-responsiveness refers to (but is not limited to): Failure to follow submission procedures and format (as contained/described herein), Failure to provide a Unit Price and Extended Total/Amount for each Contract Line Item and failure to provide Past Performance. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1.2 Offers shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Offerors past performance should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide supporting evidence reflecting an offerors ability to meet the requirements of the PWS. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their abilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s submission.

1.3 Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.4 Point of Contact – The Contract Specialist is the sole point of contact for this acquisition:

Jarod Epp, jarod.w.epp.civ@mail.mil, 402.309.8286

1.5 Discrepancies – If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial submissions, as received, without discussion (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

1.6 ORGANIZATION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

The offeror shall prepare submissions as set forth in the organizational table below.

Submission Organization

1.6.1 Page Limitations – Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and (for paper copies) will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover page, table of contents, tabs, and glossaries.

1.6.2 Technical Proposal Information – All technical performance information shall be addressed ONLY in Volume I.

1.6.3 Cost or Pricing Information – All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in Volume II. This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed costs and pricing.

a. The Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts included in the CLIN summary page.

1.6.4 Past Performance Information – All past performance information shall be addressed ONLY in Volume

Volume VOLUME CONTENTS PAGE LIMIT

One Technical Proposal 25

Two Cost / Price

Three Past Performance 10 mailto:jarod.w.epp.civ@mail.mil

III. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall submit Exhibit A, Performance Relevancy Questionnaire, providing past performance in the format requested. Offerors shall send Exhibit C, Past Performance Reference Questionnaire, to government or civilian that were listed in the Exhibit A who will submit the questionnaire directly to the jarod.w.epp.mil@mail.mil.

1.6.5. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms – Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.6.6 Basis for Contract Award. This solicitation is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.6.7 A Firm Fixed Price contract will be awarded to the offeror whose offer is determined to be the Best Value to the government and conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to 52.212-1). The government intends to award without discussions, FAR 15.306(a).

1.6.8 Number of Contracts to be awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

2.0 Evaluation Process

The award will be made based on the best overall (best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: technical, cost / price, and past performance. The technical factor is greater than past performance, and when combined, are equally weighted against the cost/price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor, to include all sub-factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

2.1 Factor One: Technical Proposal

The following information shall be provided and will be evaluated. Proposals shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

2.1.1 Evaluation Factors: Offerors will be evaluated and then rated using 2.1.2.

2.1.2 Technical Evaluation Ratings: The following ratings and descriptions will be used in the evaluation and assessment of each Technical Sub-factor and the overall Technical rating of the Technical Proposal.

Color Rating RATING DESCRIPTION mailto:jarod.w.epp.mil@mail.mil http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

2.1.3 Failure to provide required technical data with proposals may render an offeror’s proposal noncompliant with the solicitation requirements and ineligible for award. The Technical Proposal shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions given in this section and will be evaluated in accordance with Far 52.212-2 Evaluation –Commercial Items and FAR Part 15.404 Proposal Analysis. Technical Proposal binders shall not include price or pricing information.

2.1.4 The Technical proposal shall include the following documents:

a. Resume of Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager

b. Technical Narrative addressing

• Conformance with the PWS

• Management Approach & Administrative Plan

• Quality Control Plan

2.1.5 The Technical Proposal shall address how the offeror intends to comply with both technical and management performance requirements contained in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). At a minimum, the proposal will address the following sub-factors in such a manner as to provide the evaluator with a clear understanding of the Technical approach.

The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s resumes of the Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall experience related to the management of a contractor workforce and experience within the medical case management profession could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the following:

• KEY POINT #1 Experience – How long have they managed temporary workforces?

• KEY POINT #2 Backgrounds – What types of industries?

• KEY POINT #3 Managerial Experience – Size / Scope of contracts or programs managed.

Sub-factor 2: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Technical Narrative. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

KEY POINT #1 Conformance with the PWS. The proposal shall be practical, specific, comprehensive and shall clearly demonstrate both the offerors understanding of the requirements and its capability to meet the Government’s needs. Proposed methodology and approach should be sufficient to meet contractual standards and achieve quality performance comparable to the complexity and magnitude of the proposed initiative. Information shall directly comply with all performance requirements. Information should be provided on related experience and how it demonstrates that the offeror has the experience to manage the proposed services, which is comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation and PWS.

The proposal must demonstrate that the offeror has the knowledge/capabilities to perform a variety of functions related management of personnel involved in non-clinical case management services. Statements such as “We understand, can, and will comply with all specifications”; or phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed”, “well known techniques will be used”, etc., will be deemed insufficient and receive less favorable results in the evaluation process.

KEY POINT #2 Management approach and administrative plan. The proposal shall include information of the overall organizations and its relationship to this effort. Offerors shall present comprehensive approaches/plans to (1) Management Approach; (2) Staffing; (3) Recruiting/Hiring and (4) Administration that clearly demonstrate their capability to provide staffing and the required services for the proposed contract. The approach/plans shall describe recruitment/hiring procedures, meeting HSPD-12 Background Investigation requirements and measures to train a full complement of qualified staff. The approach/plans shall also document the offeror’s overall concept of how they propose to manage and staff this contract. Discuss specific criterion proposed (skill levels, experience, and background) for personnel that demonstrates an organization is adequate to meet the PWS performance requirements. Address and identify appropriate procedures and record keeping techniques that will be utilized. Address the support and interface with home office or corporate headquarters for such aspects as financial, management and technical support. Address your approach to the administration of this contract.

KEY POINT #3 Quality Control Plan. The Contractor shall develop a Quality Control Plan (QCP) and maintain an effective quality control program to ensure services are performed in accordance with the PWS. The Contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. At a minimum, the QCP needs to address office discipline, a plan to provide deliverables on time, and a mechanism for retraining staff if deficiencies in work are discovered.

2.2 Factor Two: Price

2.2.1 Adequate price competition normally establishes a fair and reasonable price. If adequate competition is not obtained, procedures outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The Government will review the prices submitted for unrealistically low prices using one or more price analysis techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1. Failure to provide realistic prices may result in an offer being rated un-awardable on the basis that unrealistically low prices are an indication that the Offeror does not understand the requirements.

2.2.2 Prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates and overtime hours). The total of CLINs will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, and used for total evaluated price. Round all prices up to the nearest penny.

2.2.3 The Government will award the contract with a base year and four (4) one year options under 52.217-9. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under 52.217-8.

The evaluation will consider the possibility that the option can be exercised at any time; however, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 by adding 6 months of the offeror's proposed prices for the last option year to the offeror's total proposed prices. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods (including the additional 6 months of service).

Year CLIN Description Cost

Base Year CLIN 0001 Non-Clinical Case Management

CLIN 0002 Travel for PHAs

CLIN 0003 CMRA

Total

Option Year 1 CLIN 0001 Non-Clinical Case Management

Option Year 2 CLIN 0001 Non-Clinical Case Management

Option Year 3 CLIN 0001 Non-Clinical Case Management

Option Year 4 CLIN 0001 Non-Clinical Case Management

Grand Total

2.3 Factor Three: Past Performance

2.3.1 Past Performance will be evaluated using the ratings identified in Table 1- Performance Confidence Assessments.

TABLE 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record and use of other evaluation methods specified in Section 2.3.5, 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 and use of other evaluation methods specified in Section 2.3.5, 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 assigned. The offeror mat not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable 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.

UNSATISFACTORY

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.

2.3.2 Offerors will complete Exhibit A (as part of Volume III) with the most recent and relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers. The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of the PWS. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel (if applicable) who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will use the following recency and relevancy definitions when assessing recent and relevant contracts:

(3) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not fall within the requirements of the definition of recency per this solicitation shall not be considered for evaluation.

2.3.3 Relevancy Assessment: As described in Table 2 below, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the provided products/services performed under those contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement provided and assign a rating of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant”.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance information that does not fall within the requirements of the definition of relevancy per this solicitation shall not be considered for evaluation.

TABLE 2 - RELEVANCY

ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT Present / past performance effort that involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present / past performance effort that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present / past performance effort that involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present / past performance effort that involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.4 In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, questionnaires received from POC’s and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Negative past performance found using these or other sources within the last three years may result in a past performance confidence rating of “Unsatisfactory Confidence”.

2.3.5 Assigning Ratings. Past performance submissions determined to be neither recent and/or relevant, will result in an offeror receiving a performance confidence assessment of “Neutral Confidence”. Any negative past performance found in received questionnaires may result in an offeror receiving a performance confidence assessment of “Unsatisfactory Confidence”. Negative past performance found using sources described in paragraph 2.3.5 may result in a past performance confidence rating of “Unsatisfactory Confidence”.

EXHIBIT A

PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY QUESTIONNAIRE

Prepare minimum three (3) and not more than five (5) Part 1 forms for similar contracts.

Provide the following information requested in this format for each of the projects/contracts being described.

Projects may be on going and cannot have been completed any earlier than 3 years prior to the solicitation issue date. Provide frank, concise comments regarding YOUR PERFORMANCE on the contracts you identify.

Use as much space as required.

A. Offeror (Your) Name (Company/Division):_______________________________________

B. Project/Contract Title: ________________________________________________________

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Description of Effort as ___________Prime Contractor or _________Subcontractor

2. Contract Number__________________________________________________________

3. Original Contract $ Value _____________ Current/Final Contract $ Value ____________

4. If amounts in 3 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason:

5. Completion Date:

i. Original Date: ________________________________________________________ Ii. Current Scheduled Completion Date (if ongoing): ___________________________

iii. Estimate/Final Completion Date: _________________________________________

iv. Primary cause for Contract Modifications__________________________________

v. If IDIQ Number of Task Orders issued: ____________________________________

**If reference is for an IDIQ Contract provide items 1-3 above, contract completion date and number of task/delivery orders issued. The Basic Contract will not count as one of 5 contracts/projects. The basic contract alone will not be considered for relevancy. The proposal must discuss relevant task order(s) complete to 90%.

Count each TO discussed as a single project/contract**

Task Order Number _____________________________________________________ Title__________________________________________________________________ Original TO $ Value _____________ Current/Final $ Value _____________________ If amounts above are different, provide a brief description of the reason:

Task Order Completion Date:

1. Original Date: _____________________________________________

2. Current Schedule if ongoing _________________________________

3. Estimate/Final Completion Date: _______________________________

4. Primary cause for Contract Modifications________________________

D. Provide detailed description of the work performed under the contract and describe why you believe the work is very relevant, relevant or semi-relevant to this solicited project.

Exhibit A continues on Next Page…

Additionally, please address the following items:

1. Describe the specific elements of the work performed by your firm.

Response:

2. Indicate what elements of work were performed by your major subcontractors and indicate if those same subcontractors will be used on this contract.

Response:

3. Address any technical areas about this project you consider uniquely relevant to this solicitation.

Response:

4. Point of Contact for Owner/Government agency Contracting Officer and or inspector; include a current phone number and facsimile number. Email address is also desired.

Response:

Questionnaire Requirements – Prepare and send Exhibit C Package to the reference(s) for each of the five (5) similar contracts.

EXHIBIT C

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions to Offeror for sending Reference Questionnaire Forms:

Prepare and submit to the owners of the projects listed in your Exhibit A “Performance Relevancy Questionnaires”, a Past Performance Reference Questionnaire (Exhibit C). For Government contracts, send to the Contracting Officer at the contract administration office identified on the contract. For commercial references, send to personnel with duties similar to those for Government contracts. Offerors should follow-up and encourage references to return completed questionnaires in a timely manner. If you have multiple references at one location (i.e. at a military base), send one cover letter and questionnaires for each contract for which you need a reference. Your questionnaire package should contain the following:

• Cover Letter (See SAMPLE on the next page)

• Respondent Info Rating Sheets (Exhibit C) (the following 4 pages). Offeror should put name in spaces indicated and ensure it is on every page for identification purposes.

• Suggested – Pre-addressed stamped envelope.

OFFEROR SHOULD PLACE THEIR NAME ON TOP OF EACH QUESTIONNAIRE PAGE In accordance with

SECTION 00120 – PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR

AWARD, completed questionnaires should be sent directly to the Contracting Office.

OFFEROR SHOULD DELETE THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE SENDING OUT

QUESTIONNAIRES

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER AND PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

QUESTIONNAIRE

Your Company Letterhead

Date:

To:

We have listed your firm as a reference for the work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm will be submitting a proposal under a project advertised by the USPFO for Nebraska. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), they will evaluate our firm's past performance. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the government evaluation team in this process. We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided for comments. Only one response from each office is required. Understand that while the responses to this questionnaire may be released to the offeror, FAR 15.306(e)(4) prohibits the release of the names of the persons providing the responses. Complete confidentiality will be maintained. Only one response from each firm is required.

Please return your completed questionnaire to the following address or email (preferred):

USPFO for Nebraska Attn: Jarod Epp 2433 NW 24th St Lincoln NE 68524

OR

jarod.w.epp.mil@mail.mil

This documentation must arrive NOT LATER THAN 10 AUG 2018, so that it can be evaluated with our proposal.

If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the USPFO Contracting Officer at carrie.l.hancock2.civ@mail.mil.

Thank you for your assistance.

Signature and Title mailto:carrie.l.hancock2.civ@mail.mil

National Guard PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Exhibit C) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: THE NATIONAL GUARD REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY TO jarod.w.epp.mil@mail.mil . THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

mailto:jarod.w.epp.mil@mail.mil

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. 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.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, 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.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):