B08_ATT_2_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE.pdf

PDF 1 MB Posted

Attached to
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards Services Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2119R0023
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service National Office

About this file

Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards Services, newest first.
File Type Posted
140P2119R0023_AMENDMENT_0001_SF_30.pdf PDF
QUESTIONS_&_ANSWERS_140P2119R0023_AM_0001.pdf PDF
B08_140P2119R0023_COMBINED_SYNOPSIS_SOLICITATION.doc DOC document
B08_ATT_1_SCOPE_OF_WORK.doc DOC document

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 140P2119R0023

ATTACHMENT 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Past Performance Questionnaire

The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) Services. As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.

Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED

CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)

NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND

EMAIL ADDRESS

DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED

Performance Element Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Other

Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH

(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

Quality / Customer Satisfaction

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7. COMMUNICATION

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate YES NO

9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

Additional Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.

Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED
Performance Element
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate
Text1:
Text3:
Text5:
Text4:
Text6:
Text2:
Text7:
Text9:
Text10:
Group2: Off
Group3: Off
Group4: Off
Group5: Off
Group6: Off
Group7: Off
Group8: Off
Group9: Off
Check Box3: Off
Check Box4: Off
Text8:
Text11:

File details come from the government source that posted it.