Attachment C.docx
DOCX document 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Family Health History Tool Community-based Dissemination and Integration in HRSA-funded Health Centers.
- Solicitation number
- 10-250-SOL-00084ebd-1R
About this file
Attachment C - Past Performance Information Survey Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Responses to questions.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment F.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment E.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment B.docx | DOCX document | |
| Invitational Letter for RFC.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment D.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP 10-250-00084-ebd-1R dtd 05-28-10.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment G .docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment A.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENTC
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Acquisition Management and Policy
| Division of Contract Operations |
| Room 13A19, Parklawn Building |
5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857-5600
Date
Dear Client:
We are currently responding to the Health Resources and Services Administration Solicitation No. 10-250-SOL-00084-ebd-1R entitled Family Health History Tool Community-based Dissemination and Integration in HRSA-funded Health Centers. The Government is placing increased emphasis in its acquisition on past performance as a source selection factor and is requiring that clients of firms responding to HRSA solicitations be identified and their participation in the evaluation process be requested.
Therefore, enclosed is a past performance questionnaire for your completion. We are requesting that you complete the questionnaire and send it directly to HRSA at the following address:
HHS/HRSA/OAMP/DCO
Attn: Elizabeth B. Downey 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13A19 Rockville, MD 20857 Tel 3014430332 Fax 3014435462
Since this information will be used as one of the evaluation factors for contract award, we are requesting that you complete this questionnaire and return it to the HRSA at the above address no later than June 28, 2010.
We thank you for your prompt response in this matter.
Sincerely, (To be signed by offeror)
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR: [ OFFEROR'S COMPANY NAME_________________________________________]
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED SURVEY ASAP but no later than June 28, 2010 to:
HHS/HRSA/OAMP/DCO
Attn: Elizabeth B. Downey 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13A19 Rockville, MD 20857 Ref: 10-250-SOL-00084-ebd-1R Tel 3014430332 Fax 3014435462
PLEASE FILL IN THE FOLLOWING:
YOUR NAME:___________________________
YOUR AGENCY:_____________________________
ADDRESS:_______________________________________
PHONE NUMBER:___________________________
FAX :__________________________________
SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING SURVEY:______________________
CONTRACT NUMBER/SOLICITATION NUMBER: ____________________________
YOUR ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT CIRCLE ONE
PROJECT OFFICER CONTRACTING OFFICER CONTRACT SPECIALIST
CONTRACT VALUE (INCLUDING OPTIONS): $___________________________________________
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (INCLUDING OPTIONS):_____________________________________
TYPE CONTRACT (I.E. COST REIMBURSEMENT, FIXED PRICE, ETC.):__________________________
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETED BY SUBCONTRACTORS: _________ %
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OR TITLE OF CONTRACT: _____________________________________
RATINGS: Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Comments to support rating may be noted on last page.
NUMERICAL RATINGS ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:
+2 EXCELLENT Based on the Offeror=s performance record, no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A significant majority of sources of information are consistently firm instating that the Offeror=s performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the Offeror again.
+1 GOOD Based on the Offeror=s performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Most sources of information state that the Offeror=s performance was good, better that average, etc., that they would do business with the Offeror again.
0 None No past performance history identifiable.
1 MARGINAL Based on the Offeror=s performance record, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Many sources of information make unfavorable reports about the Offeror=s performance and express concern about doing business with the Offeror again.
2 POOR Based on the offeror=s performance record, serious doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A significant majority of sources of information consistently stated that the Offeror=s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the Offeror again.
PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMERICAL SCORE INDICATING YOUR RATING
QUALITY OF SERVICE
1. Compliance with contract requirements +2 +1 0 1 2
| 2. Accuracy of reports | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 3. Effectiveness of personnel | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 4. Technical excellence | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
COST CONTROL
| 1. Record of forecasting and controlling target costs | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 2. Current. Accurate and complete billings | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3. Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 4. Cost efficiencies | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| 1. Met interim milestones | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 2. Reliability | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 3. Responsive to technical direction | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
4. Completed on time including wrap up and
| contract administration | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 5. Met delivery schedules | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 6. Liquidated damage assessed: yes/no | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
BUSINESS RELATIONS
| 1. Effective management, including subcontracts | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 2. Reasonable/cooperative behavior | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3. Responsive to contract requirements | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 4. Notification of problems | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 5. Flexibility | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 6. Proactive vs. Reactive | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
7. Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program +2 +1 0 1 2
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
| 1. The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2. Would you recommend selection of this firm again? | +2 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
GENERAL OVERALL RATING OF CONTRACTOR +2 +1 0 1 2
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .