exv10w3w4






Exhibit 10.3.4























 





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