Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SU/MH/SOT in San Diego, CA
- Solicitation number
- 15BCTS24R00000004
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire, a standard federal contracting form used to evaluate a contractor's historical performance across multiple dimensions. The questionnaire provides a structured framework for references to rate a contractor's performance on a 5-point scale in categories including quality of product/service, timeliness of performance, business relations, and customer satisfaction. The form allows detailed evaluation of specific contract performance aspects such as compliance with contract requirements, responsiveness to technical directions, adherence to delivery schedules, problem-solving capabilities, and staff interfacing effectiveness. Key sections include reference identification, contract details, performance ratings with comment spaces, and a narrative summary section for additional contextual information about the contractor's performance.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Reference Identification
A. Name of Reference/Activity
Include point of contact Phone #/Fax #/Address
II. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
A. Contractor
B. Contract Number
C. Contract Type
Competitive [ ]Yes [ ] No
Follow-On [ ] Yes [ ] No
D. Period of Performance
E. Estimated Contract Total (Including all option periods)
F. Description of
Supplies Provided:
G. Geographic Distribution of Services Under This
Contract, (i.e., Local, Nationwide, Worldwide)
H. Number of Locations serviced by this
Contract
III. EVALUATION
Below are listed specific questions relating to the following five categories fo contractor performance: quality, timeliness, cost, control, business relations, and customer satisfaction. Please rate the contractor for each question on a scale from 1 to 5, 5 being the best rating and 1 being the worst rating, or N/A for not applicable. There is a comment section provided below each question. Please document any responses receiving a rating of 2 or 1.
[ ] 5 - Considerably surpassed minimum requirements
[ ] 4 - Exceeded minimum requirements
[ ] 3 - Met minimum requirements
[ ] 2 - Less than minimum requirements
[ ] 1 - Efforts had a negative effect
A. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE
1. To what extent did the contractor comply with the specific contract requirements and commit adequate resources in a timely fashion to the contract?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent did the contractor respond to technical directions, quality improvement recommendations, contract change orders, etc.?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
B. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
1. To what extent did the contractor adhere to contract delivery of performance schedules?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent did the contractor meet the response times in the contract?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
C. BUSINESS RELATIONS
1. To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from Government counterparts (COTR)?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent was the contractor effective in interfacing with
Government/Company staff?
[ ] 5 [ ] 4 [ ] 3 [ ] 2 [ ] 1 [ ] N/A
Comment:
D. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience?
[ ] Yes for: [ ] Default [ ] Convenience
[ ] No
If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).
2. Are there any pending terminations?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, please explain and indicate the status.
3. Would you recommend this contractor for the award of additional contracts?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Comment:
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Use this section to explain additional information not included above.
| Page 1 |
| Page 2 |
| Page 3 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .