NEUSTAR INC - FORM 10-Q - EX-10.3.4 - October 30, 2009

Attached files

file filename
10-Q - FORM 10-Q - NEUSTAR INCw76044e10vq.htm
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - NEUSTAR INCw76044exv31w2.htm
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - NEUSTAR INCw76044exv32w1.htm
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - NEUSTAR INCw76044exv31w1.htm
EX-10.4.1 - EX-10.4.1 - NEUSTAR INCw76044exv10w4w1.htm
EX-10.1.4 - EX-10.1.4 - NEUSTAR INCw76044exv10w1w4.htm
Exhibit 10.3.4
(GRAPHIC)

 

FCC
Revised Nov. 2006
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
CONTRACTOR NAME: NueStar
CONTRACT NUMBER: CON 07000005
     
EVALUATION PERIOD: 814/2007 — PRESENT
  DELIVERY ORDER NO.:                    
 
    
GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE:
    
         
Gary Remondino
       202-418-2298
 
        
   
         
Name (print)
   Code   Phone
     Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided:
                     
    EXCELLENT   VERY GOOD   SATISFACTORY   POOR   UNACCEPTABLE
a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:
                    
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship
      XX            
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
      XX            
(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
      XX            
 
                    
b.) COST CONTROL:
                    
 
                    
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
      XX            
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
      XX            
(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
      XX            
(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
      XX            
 
                    
c.) SCHEDULE:
                    
 
                    
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
      XX            
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
      XX            
NOTE: For statements indicating “Excellent” or “Unacceptable,” please provide an explanation on the attached page.

Page 1 of 3

 

FCC
Revised Nov. 2006
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED
CONTRACTOR NAME: Nuestar
CONTRACT NUMBER: CON07000005
                     
                POOR   UNACCEPTABLE
    EXCELLENT “5”   VERY GOOD “4”   SATISFACTORY “3”   “2”   “1”
d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
                    
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
      XX            
(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
      XX            
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
      XX            
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
      XX            
(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
      XX            
(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
      XX            
(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.
      XX            
 
                    
e.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
                    
 
                    
(1) The products/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.
      XX            
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the Technical Point of Contact.
      XX            
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
      XX            
 
                    
f.) KEY PERSONNEL:
                    
 
                    
(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.
      XX            
(2) The Contractor did not frequently propose personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract that were clearly unqualified.
      XX            
NOTE: For statements indicating “Excellent” or “Unacceptable,” please provide an explanation on the
attached page.

Page 2 of 3

 

FCC
Revised Nov. 2006
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED
CONTRACTOR NAME: NueStar
CONTRACT NUMBER: CON07000005
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
SEE COTR CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 3 of 3

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Contractor Performance Report
THIS EVALUATION IS “IN PROGRESS”
     
Report Type: Interim Report
  Reporting Period: From: 08/15/2005 To: Present
Evaluating Organization: WCB
  Contract Number: CON07000005
 
    
Contractor Name and Address:
    
 
  TIN:
NeuStar, Inc.
  DUNS: 112403295
46000 Center Oak Plaza
  SIC/NAICS: 519190
Sterling, VA 20166
  Commodity Code: D308
 
  Contract Type: Firm-Fixed Price
Contract Award Date: 08/15/07
Contract Expiration Date: 08/14/2012
Option Period: Option Period 1
Contract Value: $11,210,692.00
Description of Requirement:
Administrator of the Thousand Block Pooling North American Numbering Plan.

Page 1 of 6

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
RATINGS
Quality of Product or Service
     0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Poor, 2=Good, 3= Satisfactory, 4=Excellent, 5=Outstanding
Rating: 4
Government Comments for Quality of Product or Service:
The 2008 annual NANC PAS performance evaluation report and the 2008 Preliminary Performance Evaluation report both indicated the PAS provided excellent and above requirements and more than met expectations. Significant praise for PAS on quality of service and staff was consistent with industry responses such as: Timely, Helpful, Cooperative, Supportive, Responsive, and Knowledgeable. PAS clearly demonstrates expertise along with a wiliness to go the extra mile. No comments received from the industry revealed any concern about PAS quality of service or performance.
Cost Control
     0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Poor, 2=Good, 3= Satisfactory, 4=Excellent, 5=Outstanding
Rating: 4
Government Comments for Cost Control: The 2008 annual NANC PAS performance evaluation report and the 2008 Preliminary Performance Evaluation report both indicated the PAS provided excellent service and requirements and more than met expectations.
PAS continues to provide excellent cost controls.

Page 2 of 6

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
Timeliness of Performance
     0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Poor, 2=Good, 3= Satisfactory, 4=Excellent, 5=Outstanding
Rating: 4
Government Comments for Timeliness of Performance:
The 2008 annual NANC PAS performance evaluation report and the 2008 Preliminary Performance Evaluation report both indicated the PAS provided excellent and above requirements and More than Met expectations on performance timeliness on completing requirements.
Business Relations
     0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Poor, 2=Good, 3= Satisfactory, 4=Excellent, 5=Outstanding
Rating: 4
Government Comments for Business Relations:
The 2008 annual NANC NANPA performance evaluation report and the 2008 Preliminary Performance Evaluation report both indicated the PAS provided excellent and above requirements and exceeded expectations. Significant praise for PAS staff was consistent with industry responses

Page 3 of 6

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
such as: Helpful, Cooperative, Supportive, Responsive, Knowledgeable, and clearly demonstrates expertise along with a wiliness to go the extra mile. No comments received from the industry revealed any concern about NANPA performance.
Subcontracts
Are subcontracts involved? N/A
List company names for subcontracts and Government Comments for Subcontracts:
Contractor Key Personnel
Contractor Manager/Project Manager: Amy Putnam
Government Comments on Contractor Manager/Project Manager: Performance has been excellent.
Contractor Key Person (s), list all: Amy Putnam
Small Business Subcontracting Plan
Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, reporting and other aspects of the plan?
If this is a bundled contract, did the contractor meet the goals and objectives for small business participation? N/A
Government Comments on Small Business Subcontracting Plan:
Page 4 of 6

 

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
Small Disadvantaged Business Goals
Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, monetary targets for SDB participation, and required notifications?
Government Comments for Meeting SDB Subcontracting Requirements:
Customer Satisfaction
Is/was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? Yes
Government Comments for Customer Satisfaction?
The 2008 annual NANC PAS performance evaluation report and the 2006 Preliminary Performance Evaluation report both indicated the NANPA provided excellent and above requirements and exceeded expectations. Significant praise for PAS staff was consistent with industry responses such as: Helpful, Cooperative, Supportive, Responsive, Knowledgeable, and clearly demonstrates expertise along with a wiliness to go the extra mile. No comments received from the industry revealed any concern about PAS performance.
Project Officer/COTR: Gary Remondino
Phone: 202-418-2298
Fax: 202-418-6624
e-mail: gary.remondino@fcc.gov
Page 5 of 6

 

 

CON07000005 Option Renewal
Technical Point of
Contact (TPOC): Gary Remondino
Phone:     202-418-2298
Fax:         202-418-1413
e-mail:      Gary.Remondino@fcc.gox
Contracting Officer: Arnett Rogiers
Phone: 202-418-1973
Fax: 202-418-0237
e-mail: Arnett.rogiers@fcc.gov
Contractor Representative: Amy Putnam
Phone:
Fax:
e-mail: Amy Putnam@neustar.biz
Summary of Ratings:
Quality for Product or Service Rating: 4
Cost Control Rating: 4
Timeliness of Performance Rating: 4
Business Relations Rating: 4
Page 6 of 6

 

NEUSTAR INC Reports