WMDT - PPQ.doc
DOC document 86 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OFFICE OF WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM24R0027
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 .