RFQ_No._140D0419Q0180_Attachment_IV_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 69 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140D0419Q0180
About this file
RFQ No. 140D0419Q0180 Solicitation Attachment IV Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
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
PAGE
RFQ No. 140D0419Q0180 Attachment IV Contractor Past Performance Questionnaire Upon a completion of the questionnaire, the reference should send the questionnaires to Contracting Officer, Lydia_Quintana@ibc.doi.gov. The due date for submission of the past performance questionnaires is on or before 2:00 P.M. May 23, 2019, 1PM Eastern Time (ET).
Contract Data
Evaluation Type: Interim FORMCHECKBOX Final FORMCHECKBOX (check one)
| Evaluating Organization: |
| Reporting Period: From To |
| Contracting Office: |
| Contract Number: |
| Order Number: |
Contractor Name:
Contractor Address:
| DUNS: |
| Country: USA |
| TIN: |
Additional or Alternate Contractor Name:
| NAICS: |
| Commodity Code: |
| Contract Type: |
| Contract Award Date: |
| Contract Expiration Date: |
| Contract Value: $ |
Requirement Description:
Ratings Please rate the contractor’s performance by checking the number which corresponds to the rating for each rating category.
1. Quality of Product or Service, including:
· The degree of usefulness and value to the customer of the services and products delivered.
· The degree to which the key objectives and initial intent of the contract was met.
· Did the work products contain relatively few substantial deficiencies?
· Did the work products contain detailed, logical, and insightful analysis and recommendations, use of appropriate statistical methods, insight into potential program vulnerabilities, etc.?
FORMCHECKBOX
Unsatisfactory
FORMCHECKBOX
Poor
FORMCHECKBOX
Fair
FORMCHECKBOX
Good
FORMCHECKBOX
Excellent
FORMCHECKBOX
Outstanding
Comments for Quality of Product or Service (Note: comments are required for Outstanding ratings—2,000 characters maximum):
2. Cost Control
FORMCHECKBOX
Unsatisfactory
FORMCHECKBOX
Poor
FORMCHECKBOX
Fair
FORMCHECKBOX
Good
FORMCHECKBOX
Excellent
FORMCHECKBOX
Outstanding
Comments for Cost Control (Note: comments are required for Outstanding ratings—2,000 characters maximum):
3. Timeliness of Performance, including:
· The degree to which the key objectives and initial intent of the contract was met concerning agency program deadlines
FORMCHECKBOX
Unsatisfactory
FORMCHECKBOX
Poor
FORMCHECKBOX
Fair
FORMCHECKBOX
Good
FORMCHECKBOX
Excellent
FORMCHECKBOX
Outstanding
Comments for Timeliness of Performance (Note: comments are required for Outstanding ratings—2,000 characters maximum):
4. Business Relations, including:
· Were requested corrections to deliverables quickly and correctly made, or satisfactorily explained?
FORMCHECKBOX
Unsatisfactory
FORMCHECKBOX
Poor
FORMCHECKBOX
Fair
FORMCHECKBOX
Good
FORMCHECKBOX
Excellent
FORMCHECKBOX
Outstanding
Comments for Business Relations (Note: comments are required for Outstanding ratings—2,000 characters maximum):
Additional Information Customer Satisfaction Is/was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes
FORMCHECKBOX
No (Check one) Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes
FORMCHECKBOX
No (Check one) Government Comments on Customer Satisfaction (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Personnel Contractor Key Person #1 (name):
Comment on Contractor Key Person (2,000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Person #2 (name):
Comment on Contractor Key Person (2,000 characters maximum):
Subcontracts
Are subcontracts involved?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes No (Check one) Comment on subcontracts (2,000 characters maximum):
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?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes
FORMCHECKBOX
No
FORMCHECKBOX
N/A (Check one) If this is a bundled contract, did the contractor meet the goals and objectives for small business participation?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes
FORMCHECKBOX
No
FORMCHECKBOX
N/A (Check one) Government Comments on Small Business Subcontracting Plan (2,000 characters maximum):
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?
FORMCHECKBOX
Yes
FORMCHECKBOX
No
FORMCHECKBOX
N/A (Check one) Government Comments on Small Disadvantaged Business Goals (2,000 characters maximum):
Administration Information Project Officer/COR Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Contractor Representative Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Alternate Contractor Representative (Required to ensure that at least one person is notified of evaluation) Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Contracting Officer Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Rating Guidelines
Quality of Product or Service
| Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements. |
| Poor |
| Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Cost Control
| Unsatisfactory |
| Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the contractor achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Timeliness of Performance
| Unsatisfactory |
| Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no delays and the contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Business Relations
| Unsatisfactory |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective. |
| Fair |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective. |
| Good |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is consistently effective. |
| Excellent |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeds Government expectation. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
PAGE
File details come from the government source that posted it.