Synposis_-_Appendix_A_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Blocks 1 through 11 will be filled out by the Contractor.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

3. Contractor Address:

4. Contract Type (Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursement, or Other—please specify)

5. Agency/Company Name:

6. Agency/Company POC/Phone:

7. Period of Performance:

8. Dollar Amount of Award:

Total Dollar Value with Mods:

9. Title of Contract/Project:

10. Description of Contract Service (Attach additional pages if necessary):

11. Complexity of Work (Routine, Moderate, or Complex):

Blocks 12 through 17 will be filled out by the customer or independent owner’s representative that was involved and has a past performance history of the project. Please use the Past Performance Ratings Guidelines (attached) to aid in the assignment of ratings.

a. QUALITY

b. SCHEDULE

c. COST CONTROL (NA for Firm-Fixed Price)

d. MANAGEMENT

15. Would you select this firm again? Please explain. (Continue typing to expand as necessary)

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING GUIDELINES

Evaluation Factor Definitions:

QUALITY - Includes the management of the quality control program as well as the quality of the work itself. Other areas of evaluation may include the ability to address review comments, coordination between disciplines, and compliance with design criteria.

SCHEDULE - adherence and timeliness of required products or services. This may include whether the contractor was able to stay on the approved schedule (barring delays outside of their control), to include intermediate milestones and final deliverables. It may also include their ability to get back on schedule if a delay occurred.

COST CONTROL - ability to Control Costs on a reimbursable contract (if applicable to this project). This includes the ability to ensure project cost stayed on target and earned value metrics stay within reasonable tolerances.

MANAGEMENT – ability to coordinate workload and subcontractors, pro-activeness, responsiveness, project leadership, ability to track and resolve issues, stakeholder cooperation, business acumen, cooperativeness, and the management of their SB program.

Rating Definitions:

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 a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify significant events that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how these events impacted the Government. 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 management tool that notified the Contractor of the Contractor of the contractual deficiencies.

MARGINAL: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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. To justify a Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the Contractor of the contractual deficiency.

SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear, or were, satisfactory. To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract or order. There should be be NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract or order.

VERY GOOD: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. 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.

EXCEPTIONAL: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how these events were of benefit to the Government. A significant benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY