Attachment I Past Performance Questionnaire_0006.docx
DOCX document 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IMT Enterprise Support Solutions IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140R8120R0005
About this file
This document is a past performance questionnaire for a contractor responding to the Bureau of Reclamation's solicitation for an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to provide information technology enterprise support services. The questionnaire requests information on the contractor's past project experience including contract details, period of performance, project descriptions and performance ratings on a scale of excellent to unsatisfactory in areas such as meeting objectives, providing qualified staff, responding to emergencies, communication, security compliance, scheduling, deliverables, management effectiveness, and flexibility to changes. Narrative explanations are requested for any marginal or unsatisfactory ratings. The respondent is also asked if they would work with the firm again and provide comments on strengths and weaknesses. Completed questionnaires must be returned by August 12, 2020 to assist with proposal evaluation for the solicitation to provide IT support services to the Bureau of Reclamation on an IDIQ contract.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 21
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
140R8120R0005 IMT Enterprise Support Solutions IDIQ Attachment I
Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection. The Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of soliciting offers from companies capable of providing Information Technology enterprise support services. As part of the procurement process, an increased emphasis is being placed on past performance as a source selection factor.
In order to accurately evaluate the offeror’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance history of this offeror with respect to your project involvement with them on recent project(s).
Upon completion of this questionnaire form, please e-mail directly to Rex Amicone, Reclamation Contracting Officer, at ramicone@usbr.gov and must be received by no later than August 12, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact Rex Amicone, 303-445-2485.
| 1. Respondent’s Company Name: | Insert Firm/Company Name | ||
| 2. Respondent’s First and Last Name: | Insert First and Last Name | ||
| 3. Respondent’s Title: | Insert Position Title | ||
| 4. Respondent’s Phone Number: | Insert Phone Number | ||
| 5. Respondent’s Email Address: | Insert Email Address | ||
| 6. Project Title: | Insert Project Title | ||
| 7. Value Amount of Contract: | Insert Value Amount of Contract | ||
| 8. Contract Reference No: | Insert Contract Reference Number | ||
| 9. Period of Performance: | Insert Period of Perfomance |
10. Brief Description of Project Work:
Insert brief description and number of contractor support staff on project.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the number on the scale of 1 to 6 that mostly accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. Please provide a narrative explanation for any ratings of 1, 4 or 5. The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your selection of your response.
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| Excellent |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Not Applicable |
| Performance met all contractual requirements and exceeded many that were beneficial. If problems existed they were negligible and were resolved in a timely, effective manner. |
| Performance met all contractual requirements and exceeded some that were beneficial. There were few minor problems which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner. |
| Performance met contractual requirements. There were some minor problems and the corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective. |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s correction actions were ineffective. |
| No record of past performance or the record is inconclusive or not applicable to the contract. |
| 1. Has the Contractor missed any objectives, key performance measures, key project dates, or critical milestones? |
| ☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable |
Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
2. Contractor provided experienced/qualified individuals with the proper skills and technical knowledge needed to support the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the project life. What one thing could the Contractor do to improve?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
3. Contractor ability to successfully respond to emergency situations and/or after-hours incidents (including notifying government in a timely manner and providing proper level of staff to effectively resolve incident)?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
4. Contractor was reasonable and cooperated to resolve problems, attended meetings as needed, and maintained communication to keep the project on schedule or minimize the delay?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
| 5. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the contract and personnel security requirements? |
| ☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable |
Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
6. Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
7. Contractor provided required documents and deliverables to specification requirements and were of good workmanship and relevant?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
8. Project Manager effectiveness of ability to control work assignments and ensure accomplishments meet the clients desired outcome expectations?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
9. Contractor’s ability to meet contract goals and objectives?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
10. Contractor ability to document your IT standard operating procedures?
☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
| 11. Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, | poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues? |
| ☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable |
Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
| 12. Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements; offer a quality technical approach that | was comprehensive, complete, and feasible to your satisfaction? |
| ☐Excellent ☐Good ☐Acceptable ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory ☐Not Applicable |
Please provide a narrative explanation for any performance ratings of Excellent, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.
13. Would you award or work with this firm again for similar services? (If no, please explain below) ☐Yes ☐No Please provide a narrative explanation for rationale.
14. What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?
Please provide a narrative explanation for any strengths in their performance.
14. What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?
Please provide a narrative explanation for any weaknesses in their performance.
16. Provide any additional comment(s) concerning the contractor’s performance?
Please provide a narrative explanation for any additional performance comments.
6/26/2020 10:43:00 AM Page 4 of 4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .