Attachment 7
RATING TEAM WORKSHEET Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) | ||||
OFFEROR: | INITIAL EVALUATION FINAL EVALUATION | |||
PAST PERFORMANCE (Relevancy ratings per contract reviewed are attached hereto.) ASSESSMENT: | ||||
SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE | LIMITED CONFIDENCE NO CONFIDENCE UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE | |||
NARRATIVE: Substantiation of rating is required (use reverse or additional sheets as necessary). Also attach questionnaires, interviews, MOCAS, CPARS data, etc., as back-up: | ||||
PRICE / COST TOTAL PRICE / COST: $ _______________ NARRATIVE: | ||||
EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS (Attach Evaluation Notices issued, if any. Explain, as necessary, how this information impacts confidence). All negative/adverse information not previously provided (even if a substantial confidence or satisfactory confidence rating is given) must be provided to the contractor via an EN. | ||||
______________________________________ | ______________________________________ | |||
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.1 and 3.104
CONTINUATION OF WORKSHEET
RECENCY
For all contracts submitted the performance periods were within the last three years.
RELEVANCY
(Offeror) submitted # relevant contracts: (list contract numbers). Offeror also included ___ subcontract efforts involving ___ critical subcontractors. Each of these contracts/subcontracts were reviewed for a relevancy determination described below:
(Offeror) was contracted under contract to remanufacture two passenger ferries for the U.S. Army. The efforts involved the comprehensive overhaul of the crafts to include complete disassembly, replacement of major portions of the hull, installation of computer controlled engines, rebuilt transmissions, update power generators, refurbished and balanced propellers, and installation of new wiring and other miscellaneous items. The magnitude and complexities of the efforts are essentially what this solicitation requires. Therefore, the work is considered to be very relevant.
Contract _________ was for complete rebuild and re-power of five landing craft used by the Army. The program required comprehensive disassembly, repair, and reassembly of all critical subsystems such as engines, transmissions, and some hull replacement. In addition, offeror installed new wires, fixtures, lights, and exhaust system. The magnitude and complexity of the effort are essentially what this solicitation requires. As such, the work is considered very relevant.
(Offeror) performed various tasks for the Transportation Dept. The project did not involve any significant aspects that dealt with this effort even though the scope and complexity was comparable to the effort solicited. Hence, a not relevant rating was assigned.
Synopsis of Performance Information Received:
The feedback from all customers ranged from Satisfactory assessment of the performance to Exceptional performance feedback , with the majority of assessments listed as Good. There were no Unknown, Unsatisfactory, or Marginal assessments provided. Strengths were identified as timely, quality products, excellent performance, and skilled staff. There was CPARS data as follows:
Contract # | XXXXX 04 C XXX | (Address Relevancy) |
SUBCONTRACTORS:
(Offeror) has proposed using two critical subcontractors, _________________ and ___________________________.
Subcontractor #1 ______________________
___________________________ will perform work as necessary on the following components: XYZ diesel engines, Johnson transmissions, and ABC transmissions. In addition to work for (offeror's name), (subcontractor) has performed engine and transmission overhaul work for the Navy. The type and complexity of the engine/transmission work performed by (subcontractor) is very similar to the engine/transmission work required in the current solicitation. Therefore, all of these efforts are considered very relevant.
Synopsis of Performance Information Received:
The feedback from all customers was very positive and ranged in feedback from Satisfactory to Exceptional , with the majority of feedbacks reflecting Good performance. There were no assessments submitted that were less than Satisfactory. Strengths were identified as responsive, reliable, fair, experts at their own trade.
Subcontractor #1 _____________________
_________________________ has sold and performed repair work on engines for (offeror) over the last eight years. However, sale and repair of engines fall well short of the overhaul effort solicited. Repair infers removal and replacement of the failed part. On the other hand, overhaul is a comprehensive effort to make the engine like new. Therefore, the effort is considered to be not relevant.
Synopsis of Performance Information Received:
The feedback from all customers was very positive and ranged in feedback from Satisfactory to Exceptional , with the majority of feedbacks reflecting Good performance. There were no assessments submitted that were less than Satisfactory. . Strengths were identified as respectable and excellent trained staff in technical aspects of production and service.
EN Responses: EN _____ was issued providing the relevancy ratings of contracts reviewed. No response was received.
CONCLUSION: