WMDT - PPQ.doc

DOC document 86 KB Posted

Attached to
OFFICE OF WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Solicitation number
19AQMM24R0027
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluation of offerors responding to solicitation number 19AQMM24R0027 issued by the Department of State. The solicitation seeks on-site labor support for the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, Office of the Biological Policy Staff, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security, and Office of Counterproliferation Initiatives. The past performance questionnaire requires offerors to provide references who will evaluate the offeror's performance on previous similar contracts. References will evaluate offerors on personnel management, operational capability, overarching requirements and customer satisfaction. Completed questionnaires must be returned to the contracting officer at the Department of State by February 22. The solicitation seeks support for countering chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism through diplomatic engagement, programs and interagency coordination.

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

Past Performance Questionnaire Offeror - The Offeror shall complete Section1 and then send the entire questionnaire (Sections 1, 2, and 3) to at least three references in accordance with the instructions contained in Section L. A copy of Section 1 shall be included at the end of Offeror’s Volume 4 – Past Performance proposal.

References- The references shall then complete Section 2 Similarity of Work and Section 3 Degree of Customer Satisfaction. The questions are intended to be used to evaluate the history of performance of an Offeror submitting a proposal in response to the OFFICE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TERRORISM (WMDT) RFQ 19AQMM24R0027 issued by the U.S. Department of State (DoS), B Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be returned to Pete Jones, Contacting Officer, U.S. Department of State, Office of Acquisition Management, on or before February 22 at midnight (00:00). Reply by e-mail is preferred JonesPW@state.gov. References responses to this questionnaire will be considered confidential, except as explained below. Responses returned by Offerors will not be used in the Past Performance evaluation. For the purposes of this survey, "Offeror", refers to the specific Contractor that requested you to provide this information to the Government.

Section 1 – Information on Past Performance Reference (To be completed by Offeror and sent to Reference)

a. Name of person who will receive and respond to this Questionnaire

b. Title/Job Function

c. Agency/Company

d. Mail Stop/Suite

e. Address

f. City

g. State
.

h. Zip

i. Telephone Number

j. Fax

k. Date this Questionnaire forwarded to reference

Contract Information: The Offeror shall list the specific contract he would like the Reference to report on.

a. Contract name/Program name

b. Contract number

c. Type of contract

d. Name of contractor/subcontractor rated by this Performance Record Questionnaire. Include:

Address, Telephone and Name of POC

e. Date of contract award

f. Date contract completed

g. Specify whether the Offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor

h. If a subcontractor, specify the name of the prime contractor

a. Original Contract Amount

b. Estimate of Final Contract Amount

c. Amount Expended to Date

Section 2 – Similarity of Work (To be completed by References) Please provide a brief description of the Scope of Work this Contractor provided to you:

Rate the similarity of the type of effort required between the DoS RFP and the contract with which you are completing this questionnaire (i.e. DoS RFP is dissimilar, similar or are you unsure):

Dissimilar
Similar
Not Sure

Rate the scope of effort required between the DoS RFP and the contract (i.e., the DoS RFP is smaller, similar or larger in scope):

Smaller
Similar
Larger
Not Sure

Rate the complexity of effort required between the DoS RFP and contract (i.e., the DoS RFP is less complex, similar or more complex):

Less Complex
Similar
More Complex
Not Sure

Section 3 – Degree of Customer Satisfaction (To be completed by References)

For each of the following areas, please check the box that indicates your experience with this contractor. If the question is Not Applicable, please check that box. Please include a narrative explanation whenever you feel that it is appropriate. If a rating of "Unsatisfactory" is given an explanation is required.

OFFEROR - Personnel, Management and Corporate Experience Rate the Offeror's performance with respect to:

1. Ability to Estimate and Contain Costs

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

Narrative:

2.

Quality and Adequacy of Personnel

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

3.

Quality and Adequacy of Resources

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

4.

Corporate Knowledge and Experience in Other Countries including Culture and Customs

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

5.

Ability to Coordinate and Cooperate with Host Nations and Others

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

6.

Ability to Coordinate and Competently Manage Teams, Subcontractors and Others

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

OVERALL RATING - Personnel, Management and Corporate Experience

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

OFFEROR – Operational Capability Rate the Offeror's performance with respect to:

7.

Knowledge and Expertise in international organizations to counter chemical, biological, radiologic, nuclear terrorism

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

8.

Knowledge and Expertise in the mission space of the Department of State, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

9 .

Knowledge and Experience in countering chemical, biological, radiologic, nuclear terrorism

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

10.

Knowledge of Training and/or Advising Host Nations

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

11.

Processes and Procedures Reflect Industry and International Best Practices

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

12.

Ability to address Challenges such as changing environments, dealing with the unknown

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

OVERALL – Operational Capability

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

OFFEROR – Overarching Requirements Rate the Offeror's performance with respect to:

13.

Safety of Personnel and Equipment

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

14.

Security of Personnel and Equipment

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

15.

Adequacy of Medical Support

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

16.

Knowledge and Adequacy of Logistic

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

17.

Knowledge and Adequacy of Communications

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

18. Knowledge and Adequacy of Quality Assurance, Performance Metrics and Deliverables

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

OVERALL PERFORMANCE – Overarching Requirements

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional
Not Applicable

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

19.

If you were able to make the decision, would you select this Offeror again for a similar contract?

Yes
No
Maybe

20.

Would you recommend this Offeror to others?

Yes
No
Maybe

21.

Did the Contractor Exhibit Professionalism and Concern for Customer Needs and Requirements?

Yes
No
Maybe

22.

Was the Contractor Committed to Outstanding Customer Service?

Yes
No
Maybe

OVERALL PERFORMANCE – Customer Service

1=Unsat
2=Poor
3=Satisfactory
4=Very Good
5=Exceptional

Provide any additional comments that you feel are important in the evaluation of the Offeror's performance:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .