MSFC Form 4578 at a glance
What it is: MSFC Form 4578 (March 2013) is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contractor Performance Assessment Review Non-System (Services) CPARS Input Sheet, an evaluation of performance (Source Selection Information).
A filled-in MSFC Form 4578 example: an intermediate evaluation of a services contract

How to fill out MSFC Form 4578, box by box
Contract/PO number, contractor, evaluation period, initial, intermediate or final
Ratings and narratives, areas A to F

Evaluate all areas that pertain to the contract under evaluation, unless they are not applicable (N/A).
Enter a Rating 1-5 for A. Quality of Product or Service, B. Schedule, C. Cost Control, D. Business Relations, E. Management of Key Personnel and F. Utilization of Small Business: 1. Unsatisfactory, 2. Marginal, 3. Satisfactory, 4. Very Good, 5. Exceptional or N/A.
A short, factual narrative statement is required for all assessments regardless of rating.
Each narrative statement in support of the area assessment must contain objective data.
A narrative is required for each rated element.
Collect input from entire program/project team.
Document problems and solutions.
Contain nonpersonal and objective statements.
Cost Control is not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment.
Management of Key Personnel is for Services and Information Technology Business Sectors only, and is not applicable to Operations Support.
Utilization of Small Business: this area must be rated for all contracts and task orders that contain a small business subcontracting goal.
G. Other Areas

Specify additional evaluation areas under Other Areas that are unique to the contract, or that cannot be captured elsewhere on the form.
More than one type of entry may be included, but should be separately labeled.
If the contract contains an award fee clause, enter "award fee" in the "Other Areas" Block (18g).
H. Evaluator Statement

Check the statement which best applies to the contract evaluation.
Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to execute what they promised in their proposal, check one choice that applies to awarding to them today, given that you had a choice. The choices run from would not at one end, then probably would not, might or might not and probably would, to would at the other end.
More rules for MSFC Form 4578
The CPAR is designed to assess prime contractor performance.
When performance has changed from one period to another such that a change in rating results, the narrative must address each change.
Ratings will be in accordance with the definitions listed in this part of the page, with the exception of Section F. Exceptional: performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many, accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Very Good: performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some, accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions were effective.
Satisfactory: performance meets contractual requirements, and contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Marginal: performance does not meet some contractual requirements, the performance has a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions, and the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Unsatisfactory: performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Sources
[1] MSFC Form 4578 (March 2013), Contractor Performance Assessment Review Non-System (Services) CPARS Input Sheet, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (the Official source link on this page).

