Performance Appraisal Samples for Engineers

Document Sample
Performance Appraisal Samples for Engineers Powered By Docstoc
					Procurement Forum
March 12, 2008

   I.     Welcome
   II.    Performance Appraisal Rating System and
   III.   210.S Overview
   IV.    Contractor Performance Evaluations (NF
   V.     Closeout Best Practices
   VI.    Wrap-Up
Procurement Training
  Contractor Performance
        (NF 1680)
 Policy and Procedures
 Evaluation Form
       NF 1680
       Rating Definitions
 Best Practices
 Samples
 FAR 42.15, NFS 1842.15, and PIC 01-12
 Purpose
       Communications with Contractor
       Source Selection Information
   Evaluations used to determine award fee
    or incentive fee payments may be used to
    satisfy FAR requirements
       Update to PPDB each award fee period for
        award and incentive fee contracts
   Evaluations required for:
       Contracts exceeding simplified acquisition
       Contracts exceeding 1 year period of
       Purchase Orders and BOA orders over $100K
   Evaluation not required for Interagency
   Interim evaluations, annually
       Within 60 days of anniversary
       Optional on SBIR/STTR Phase II’s
   Final evaluations at completion
       Final, summarizing all performance, must be done
   Minimum of 30 days for contractor comments
       Review of timely disagreement (upon contractor
        request) at one level above Contracting Officer and must
        be within 30 days
       Copy of all finalized evaluations must be provided to
   Copies of full evaluation (with contractor
    comments, etc.) must be retained and marked
    “Source Selection Information”
   Disclosure restricted to Government personnel
    and the contractor during period it’s used as SSI
   Retain for purposes of source selection for 3
    years after completion of contract performance
   Retain in contract file as provided in FAR 4.8
   Create and save NF 1680 in PPDB
NF 1680
   NASA Form 1680, entitled, "Evaluation of
    Performance," shall be used to document
   Contractor performance rated for the following:
       Attributes
            Quality                Attributes should
            Timeliness             be defined as part
            Price/Cost             of the evaluation
            Other (as specified)
       Ratings
                                    Rating definitions at
            Excellent
                                    NFS 1816.405-275,
            Very Good
                                    Award Fee
            Good
                                    Evaluation Scoring
            Satisfactory
            Poor/Unsatisfactory
   Excellent: Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a
    timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any)
    deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance.
   Very good: Very effective performance, fully responsive to
    contract requirements; contract requirements accomplished in a
    timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part; only
    minor deficiencies.
   Good: Effective performance; fully responsive to contract
    requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable
    effect on overall performance.
   Satisfactory: Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable
    standards; adequate results; reportable deficiencies with
    identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.
   Poor/Unsatisfactory: Does not meet minimum acceptable
    standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one
    or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which adversely
    affect overall performance.
   Start early with COTR request
       Minimum of 30 days before anniversary date
            Use MM or Outlook schedule reminders
   Meet with COTR in-person, if possible
       Give purpose for evaluation
       Provide rating definitions and samples
       Work with COTR and Other Stakeholders (COTR
        Management, Resources, QA, End Users, etc.)
            Frequent follow-ups may be necessary
   Use detailed and thoughtful narratives, that:
      Define attributes                              See
      Assign ratings in context of rating definition
       Use facts (as opposed to opinions)
       Maintain consistency with assigned rating definition
   Prepare and edit narratives in MS Word and cut
    and paste into PPDB
   Provide contractor advance notice it will receive
       Explain purpose of evaluation
   With evaluation, provide contractor:
       Rating definitions
       Notice that evaluation will be placed in database after 30
       Invitation to discuss evaluation, if appropriate
   Invite COTR to evaluation discussion
       Prepare COTR before discussion
                  BEST PRACTICES
   Contractors may ask why they did not receive a
    higher rating
       Discussion is not a negotiation
            Ratings should not change simply because contractor
            Narratives should not change, unless factually incorrect
       Review rating definitions with contractor
            Consistency between narrative and rating definition helps
       Remind contractor that written comments on evaluation
        are welcome
            Contractor’s comments should be added verbatim
   Give COTR (and other stakeholders) a due date
    for responses to contractor comments
       COTR will likely respond quickly, but in some cases
        follow-ups may be necessary
       If COTR needs to coordinate with his/her manager, you
        may want to go to the manager (e.g., Project Manager)
   NASA review should --
       Address contractor’s disagreements
       Document discussions, if any, held after comments
       Summarize final findings
   Past Performance Database (PPDB)
   Web Data Entry
       Contract Number (NAS 5 XXXXX, S XXXXXY,
        NNG0XXXXXC) – Must be active contract
       New eval or edit in-process eval
       Verify contract data (changes to PSST)
       Enter evaluation
            Must have cage code or DUNS number
       Enter CO signature date and save when evaluation
        complete (this triggers input into database)
   Reports

 This attribute covers the contractor's performance in the area of the
contract/business management function (including staffing and resources).
NASA GSFC is very pleased with the level of commitment the contractor
has in connection with the contract/business management function. The
contractor is a Small Disadvantaged Business that exhibits a high level of
commitment to meeting contract level requirements. As this is the
contractor’s first contract with NASA, the many contract/business
requirements (especially those associated with cost-reimbursement
contracting) have the potential to overwhelm the small company, but the
contractor displays an eagerness to learn how to do business with NASA
and outstanding professionalism. It is a pleasure to work with the
contractor’s business and financial team. In particular, NASA is pleased
with the level of commitment that the contractor’s business management
staff has exhibited in the area of reporting via the Contractor Cost Report
(NF533 Monthly and Quarterly). NASA recognizes the contractor’s
inexperience in this area and is pleased with the can do attitude that the
business team exhibits. It is very important to NASA that it receive timely
submission of the cost report data. This is essential as its contents are
relied upon by senior management. The contractor has made significant
improvements in this area and we are looking forward to their continued
timely submissions.
                 Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104

 This attribute covers contractor performance in
the area of compliance with delivery dates for
contract level deliverables. In general NASA
GSFC finds the contractor's performance to be
fully responsive to contract requirements. One
minor deficiency is noted, but it does not effect
the overall performance. The Quarterly Status
Reviews are slightly behind schedule, due to
unforeseen and unavoidable events. Other
contract level deliverables have been received in
a timely manner.
           Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104

This attribute covers contractor
performance in the area of price or cost
control. In general, NASA GSFC finds the
contractor's performance to be effective in
this area.

          Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104

  This attribute covers contractor performance in the areas of
 compliance with contract requirements related to the spacecraft’s
 technical performance, as well as, quality assurance; and
 efficiency and effectiveness of the contractor’s program
 management function (including, management of staffing and
 resources). In general, NASA GSFC finds the contractor’s
 performance meets minimum acceptable standards. The
 Observatory has been integrated, and currently is in performance
 testing. Compliance with a majority of the contract’s technical
 requirements is yet to be verified, and the technical performance
 of the spacecraft is ultimately established after successful
 completion of the Observatory environmental test program.
 Several areas of concern are discussed below: …

                Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104

 This attribute covers contractor performance in the areas of progress towards and compliance with
contract delivery dates, as well as, the efficiency and effectiveness of the schedule management
function. A poor/unsatisfactory rating is given as the contractor’s performance in these areas does
not meet minimum acceptable standards.

 The contractor senior management failed to support its own program management team with
adequate staffing, which led to significant delays in the C&DH (2 years), as well as most other
activities across the program. Delay in completion of the C&DH resulted in a significant delay in
completing Spacecraft Integration and Test (I&T), a major milestone event under the delivery
order. The spacecraft bus and I&T teams were not prepared when the instruments arrived in the
Summer of 2006. Spacecraft bus I&T started only 2 weeks prior to the arrival of the science
instrument in July 2006. The original I&T plan had spacecraft bus I&T completion five months
before delivery of the instruments.

 Many program activities are not well planned including Observatory comprehensive performance
testing, fault management testing, Observatory power testing, and on-orbit scenario testing,
ultimately leading to delays in completion of these activities. Launch site planning and preparation
activities are at risk of falling behind.

The common underlying issue is not the skills of the contractor engineers or management
supporting the program, but inadequate staffing and resources in general.

                       Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104

Description: Performance Appraisal Samples for Engineers document sample