EZ Messenger Staff - Vendor Performance Report (TX OAG)

Below you can find the copy of the performance report we received this year from the child support division contract for the Texas Attorney General accounts.

VENDOR COMMENT:

GENERAL PERFORMANCE CODE(S):

• (310) Order or service completed satisfactorily

SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION CODE(S):

UNSATISFACTORY RESOLUTION CODE(S):

RESOLUTION DATE:

GRADE: B

Grade Explanation

Grade A:

Contractor that delivered the good or service; that is the best value for the good or service because it complied with all the specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents; in full compliance of all material terms of the contract; and with complete or substantial customer satisfaction.

Grade B:

Contractor delivered the good or service that is the best value for the good or service because it complied with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents; in substantial compliance of all material terms of the contract or promptly remedied any instance of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract; and with substantial or adequate customer satisfaction.

Grade C:

Contractor delivered the good or service that is the best value for the good or service because it complied with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents; substantially remedied a majority of the in-stances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract; and with adequate customer satisfaction.

Grade D:

Contractor delivered the good or service that was not the best value for the good or service because it did not comply with substantially all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents; or in substantial non-compliance of material terms of the contract and failed to remedy a majority of instances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract.

Grade F:

Contractor delivered the good or service that was not the best value for the good or service because it did not comply with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents; in substantial non-compliance of material terms of the contract and failed to remedy a majority of instances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract; or in a manner that subjects the contractor to debarment.