Attachment_J-5_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2032H319R00010
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template for evaluating a contractor's performance on a previous Department of the Treasury contract. The questionnaire addresses quality, timeliness, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction for RESTORE Act subject matter expert review services. Respondents are asked to rate the contractor's performance on a scale from excellent to unacceptable across six questions on quality of product or service, three on timeliness of performance, two on business relations, and four on customer satisfaction. Space for comments is provided below each question. The related federal contract opportunity notice seeks proposals for RESTORE Act subject matter expert services, with responses due by July 11, 2019 to the Internal Revenue Service under solicitation number 2032H319R00010.
Attachment J-5 - Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Copy_of_Q_and_A_7.25.19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2032H319R00010_-_revised_7-25-2019.pdf | ||
| RFP_2032H319R00010_-_revised_7-18-2019.pdf | ||
| Attachment_J-1_PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-4_-_Price_Submission_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_J-7_-_Task_Order_Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2032H319R00010.pdf | ||
| Attachment_J-3_-_Conflict_of_Interest_Certification_for_Direct_Component_Outside_Reviewers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-6_-_QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-2_-_Conflict_of_Interest_-_Offeror.docx | DOCX document |
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
REVIEWER: PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED FORM TO VERONICA.M.LEWIS@IRS.GOV
ATTACHMENT 5: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of the Treasury Request for Proposal # 2032H319R00010
Name of Company being evaluated
Name of Entity/Agency/Firm for which Company being evaluated provided service
Questionnaire Respondent Name and Title
Questionnaire Completion Date
Period of Performance for which this evaluation covers
Detailed Description of Requirement
EVALUATION – Instructions to questionnaire respondent
Below are listed specific questions relating to the following five categories for contractor performance: quality, timeliness, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction. Please rate the contractor for each question on a scale from Excellent to Unacceptable or N/A for not applicable. There is a comment section provided below each question. Please document any responses receiving a rating of Unacceptable.
Excellent: Past Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Good: Past Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Acceptable: Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Unacceptable: Past Performance did not meet contractual requirements and recovery was not timely. The contractual performance reflects serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions or the contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
A. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE
1. To what extent did the contractor comply with the specific contract requirements?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent did the contractor provide quality subject matter expert reviews?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
3. To what extent did the contractor provide quality (scientific, environmental compliance, and/or construction) subject matter expertise?
Comment:
4. To what extent did the contractor identify additional/different subject matter expertise than available in-house, if needed?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
5. To what extent did the contractor provide quality project management, including scheduling of resources and tracking status of deliverables?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
6. To what extent did the contractor provide quality project orientation materials?
B. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
1. To what extent did the contractor adhere to contract delivery of performance schedules?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent did the contractor adhere to contract delivery of monthly reports?
3. Responsiveness and capability to respond to urgent/short term requirements.
C. BUSINESS RELATIONS
1. To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from Government counterparts (COR)?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
Comment:
2. To what extent was the contractor effective in interfacing with Government staff?
D. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for cause, default or convenience?
[ ] Yes for: [ ] Default [ ] Convenience [ ] Cause [ ] 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
F. OVERALL PERFORMANCE
How would you rate the vendor’s overall performance?
[ ] Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Acceptable [ ] Unacceptable [ ] N/A
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .