24R2013_Attach 2_PPQ.docx
DOCX document 88 KB Posted
- Attached to
- STUDENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES for GARMISCH & MUNICH. Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HE1254-24-R-2013
- Issued by
- Department of Defense Education Activity
About this file
This document is a Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) related to Solicitation HE1254-24-R-2013 for Student Transportation Services (STS) for the Garmisch Elementary Middle School (GEMS) and Munich International School (MIS). The PPQ requests information from the Offeror's references on their past performance in areas such as transporting students, providing safety aides, managing personnel and vehicles, responding to incidents, maintaining vehicles, providing training, delivering reports, and overall communication and performance. The questionnaire includes a rating scale and opportunity for the reference to provide comments. The related federal contract opportunity is for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) to procure STS, with a focus on safety, for the GEMS and MIS schools.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 33
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
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
HE125424R2013 Attachment 2
PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
This Questionnaire Pertains to: Garmisch School Complex (GEMS School Zone A & MIS School Zone B)
The Offeror must complete the “To be completed by Offeror” section prior to sending the PPQ to the Offeror’s Reference/Customer. The Offeror’s Reference/Customer must complete the PPQ’s evaluation section and return the completed PPQ via e-mail to the attention of:
Department of Defense Education Activity Attn: Contract Specialist: John Butts Contracting Officer: John Grimes 4800 Mark Center Drive, 5th Floor, Suite #05H02-10 b Alexandria, VA 22350 E-Mail: john.butts@dodea.edu E-Mail: john.grimes@dodea.edu
This information section is to be completed by the Offeror.
| Contractor Information: | |
| Firm Name: Click or tap here to enter text. | N/CAGE Code: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Address: Click or tap here to enter text. | Unique Entity ID: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Phone Number: Click or tap here to enter text. | Email Address: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Point of Contact: Click or tap here to enter text. | Point of Contact Number: Click or tap here to enter text. |
Work Performed as: ☐Prime Contractor ☐Sub Contractor ☐Joint Venture ☐Other (Explain)
Percent of project work performed: Click or tap here to enter text.
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #): Click or tap here to enter text.
| Reference Information: | |
| Business Name of Reference: | Address: Click or tap here to enter text. |
Click or tap here to enter text.
| Phone Number: Click or tap here to enter text. | Email Address: Click or tap here to enter text. |
| Point of Contact: Click or tap here to enter text. | Point of Contact Number: Click or tap here to enter text. |
Contract Number: Click or tap here to enter text. Final Contract Value: Click or tap here to enter text.
Contract Type: ☐Firm Fixed Price ☐Cost Reimbursement ☐Other (Explain)
Period of Performance: Click or tap here to enter text.
Present and Past Performance Questionnaire Source Selection Information1 - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
HE125424R2013 Attachment 2
This evaluation section is to be completed by the Offeror’s customer.
Evaluation KEY: Please use the following abbreviations to assign an applicable rating for questions 1 thru 6 below:
| P/U |
| S |
| G |
| VG |
| E |
| N |
| Poor/Unsatisfactory |
| Satisfactory |
| Good |
| Very Good |
| Excellent |
| Neutral/N/A |
| Does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. |
| Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. |
| Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. |
| Very effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part; only minor deficiencies with minimal effect on overall performance. |
| Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance. |
| No record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available. |
1. How would you rate the Contractor’s experience with transporting pre-kindergarten through high school grade children from their designated bus stops to and from school in the school districts? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
2. How would you rate the Contractor’s experience with transporting a special needs student with a Safety Aide and providing an appropriate vehicle from their designated stop to their school, and vice versa? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
3. How would you rate the Contractor’s experience in providing a Safety Attendant and/or Safety Aide services on the school bus during runs? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
4. How would you rate the Contractor’s experience in appropriately managing their personnel and vehicles (i.e. Has the Contractor been responsive to deficiencies and performance issues and making timely corrections? Has the Contractor taken a proactive approach when known performance issues may hinder mission requirements?) Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
5. How would you rate the Contractor in responding to incidents and accidents in regards to transporting students on the bus? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
6. How would you rate the Contractor’s performance in maintaining their vehicles in accordance with host nation laws and contractual requirements? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
7. How would you rate the Contractor’s performance in providing, tracking and reporting required training? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
8. How would you rate the Contractor’s performance in providing timely and accurate reports and other contract deliverables? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
9. How would you rate the Contractor’s communication? Have they communicated issues as necessary to ensure all stakeholders were informed? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
10. How would you rate the Contractor’s overall performance? Comments:
| P ☐ |
| S☐ |
| G☐ |
| VG☐ |
| E☐ |
| N☐ |
HE125424R2013 Attachment 2
HE125424R2013 Attachment 2Explain any problems and resolutions Brief Description of Effort to include relevancy to the solicitation requirements of the RFP.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .