RFP 2011-N-13271 ATTACHMENT J2 Contractor Performance Report.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Prevention with HIV Positives (PwP) Intervention at HIV Clinics Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 2011-N-13271
About this file
RFP 2011-N-13271 Attachment J2 Contractor Performance Report
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 2011-N-13271 15 Questions and Answers 5-4-2011.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions and Answers in reponse to RFP 2011-N-13721 5-4-2011.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP 2011-N-13271 Questions and Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions and Answers for RFP 2011-N-13271.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP 2011-N-13271 ATTACHMENT J5.pdf | ||
| RFP 2011-N-13271 Attachment J3 Billing Instructions for Negotiated Cost.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP 2011-N-13271 ATTACHMENT J6 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J1 ACH Form.pdf | ||
| RFP 2011-N-13271 ATTACHMENT J4.pdf | ||
| RFP Cover Letter For 2011-N-13271 PwP.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOLICITATION No. 2011-N-13271 - PwP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Prevention with Positives Pre-Solicitation Notice.pdf |
Show all 12
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
RFP 2011-N-13271 Standard Attachment J2 Contractor Performance Report
Evaluation Type: Interim _ Final _ (check one)
| 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) Government Comment on subcontracts (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Personnel
Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator (name):
Government Comment on Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Person (name):
Government Comment on Contractor Key Person (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Key Person (name):
Government Comment on Contractor Key Person (2000 characters maximum):
Small Business Subcontracting Plan
Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, reporting and other aspects of the plan? _Yes _No _N/A (Check one)
If this is a bundled contract, did the contractor meet the goals and objectives for small business participation?
_Yes _No _N/A (Check one)
Government Comments on Small Business Subcontracting Plan (2000 characters maximum):
Small Disadvantaged Business Goals
Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, monetary targets for SDB participation, and required notifications? _Yes _No _N/A (Check one)
Government Comments on Small Disadvantaged Business Goals (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) – FINAL REPORT ONLY
Government Comments on Customer Satisfaction (2000 characters maximum):
Admin Info
Project Officer/COTR Name:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Contractor Representative Name:
Phone:
Alternate Contractor Representative (Required to insure that at least one person is notified of evaluation)
Phone:
Contracting Officer:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Contractor Comments
Quality of Product of Service
___Contractor has elected not to comment
Contractor Comments for Quality of Product of Service (2000 characters maximum):
Cost Control
Contractor Comments for Timeliness of Performance (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Comments for Business Relations (2000 characters maximum):
Overall Comment
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". |
| 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". |
| 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". |
OMB CLEARANCE NO. 9000-0142
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .