Section_J_-_Attachment_H_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Technical Assistance for HRSA Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 14-250-SOL-00011
About this file
Amendment Number 000001 to Solicitation Number 14-250-SOL-00011 (Section J - Attachment H - Past Performance Questiionnaire provided is MSWord.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_Number_1_-_Solicitation_14-250-SOL-00011.pdf | ||
| Cover_Letter_Solicitation_Number_14-250-SOL-00011.pdf | ||
| Attachments_Solicitation_Number_14-250-SOL-00011_TA_IDIQ.pdf | ||
| Standard_Form_33_Solicitation_Number_14-250-SOL-00011.pdf | ||
| Soliciation_Number_14-250-SOL-00011_HRSA_Technical_Assistance_and_Attachment_A_-_SOW.pdf |
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
SECTION J ATTACHMENT H
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Solicitation Number 14-250-SOL-00011
FOR: ________________________________________________________________________
(Name of Company you are completing this Past Performance Questionnaire for)
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED SURVEY VIA EMAIL TO MFOREMAN@HRSA.GOV or to:
HRSA/OAMP/CAD– Attn: Marisha Foreman Parklawn Building, Room 13A-55 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20857 Email: MForeman@hrsa.gov Fax: 301-480-1727
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
Approximate Percentage of Work Competed by Subcontractors: ______ % General Description or work 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.
Standard Contractor Performance Report
| Evaluation Type: Solicitation-Past Performance Evaluation Factor |
| Solicitation No.: |
| Evaluating Organization: |
| Reporting Period: From to |
| Contracting Office: |
| Contract Number: |
| Order Number: |
| Contractor Name: |
| Contractor Address: |
| DUNS: |
| City: |
| State: |
Additional or Alternate Contractor Name:
| Zip/Postal Code: |
| Country: |
| TIN: |
| Industrial Code (NAICS): |
| Commodity Code: |
| Contract Type: |
| Contract Award Date: |
| Contract Expiration Date: |
| Contract Value: |
Requirement Description:
Ratings
Summarize contractor performance and check the number which corresponds to the rating for each rating category (See attached Rating Guidelines).
Quality of Product or Service _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Government Comments for Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum):
Cost Control (Rating and Comments for Cost Control are not required if contract type is Fixed-Price) _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Government Comments for Cost Control (2000 characters maximum):
Timeliness of Performance _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Government Comments for Timeliness of Performance (2000 characters maximum):
Business Relations _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Government Comments for Business Relations (2000 characters maximum):
Additional Info
Subcontracts
Are subcontracts involved? __Yes __No (Check one) Comment on subcontracts (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Personnel
Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator (name):
Comment on Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Personnel (name):
Comment on Contractor Key Person (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Personnel (name):
Comment on Contractor Key Person (2000 characters maximum):
Customer Satisfaction
Is/was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? _Yes _No (Check one)
Would you recommend the selection of this firm again? _Yes _No (Check one) –
Comments on Customer Satisfaction (2000 characters maximum):
Admin Info
Project Officer/COR Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Contracting Officer:
Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Rating Guidelines
Quality of Product or Service
0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent 5 = Outstanding
| 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
0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent 5 = Outstanding
| 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". |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .