018 - PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DA01--Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation 2 (T4NG2) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C10B23R0011
About this file
This document contains a performance risk assessment questionnaire and details of a related federal contract opportunity. The performance risk assessment questionnaire requests information from offerors and references to evaluate past performance on federal contracts. It includes rating definitions and questions on quality, milestones, management relations, and small business subcontracting.
The related federal contract opportunity is a draft request for proposal for the Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation 2 effort to provide information technology services and solutions to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The solicitation number is 36C10B23R0011 and offers are due in February 2023 from the VA Technology Acquisition Center. The draft RFP provides sample self-scoring structures and invites feedback on the draft to be submitted by January 20th. Final RFP details and point structures will be released in February.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
DA01--Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation 2 (T4NG2) has more files on GovTribe.
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
PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does. Thank you.
PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)
A. Contract Identification
Contractor/Company Name/Division:
Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number/CAGE Code:
Address:
Program Identification/Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Type:
Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):
Contract Award Date:
Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:
Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:
B. Identification of Offeror’s Representative
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number:
Address:
E-mail Address:
PART II. EVALUATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY POINT OF CONTACT – RESPONDENT)
A. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:
Organization:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number Address:
E-mail Address:
B. Rating Definitions:
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| DEFINITION |
Exceptional
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
For the Small Business Evaluation Factor:
Exceeded all statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.
Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
Very Good
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
For the Small Business Evaluation Factor:
Met all of the statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/order, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.
Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to small business utilization. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative opportunities to participate as subcontractors for work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.
For the Small Business Evaluation Factor:
Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/order. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract/order. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.
Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).
For the Small Business Evaluation Factor:
Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan. Did not have a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.
Note: To justify a Marginal rating, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency.
Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).
For the Small Business Evaluation Factor:
Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/order. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Had a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period.
To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the Government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan.
C. How would you rate the level of quality of the contractor’s services?
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EXPLANATION |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
D. How well did the contractor meet the established milestones and project dates?
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EXPLANATION |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
E. How do you rate the quality of the management or business relations by the contractor?
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EXPLANATION |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
F. How would you rate the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting and controlling project costs? Leave blank if not applicable.
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EXPLANATION |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
G. How would you the contractor’s small business subcontracting? Leave blank if not applicable.
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EXPLANATION |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
PART III. RESPONDENT CERTIFICATION
I, _____________________________, certify that I completed this questionnaire accurately to the best of my knowledge and belief.
PART IV. RETURN INFORMATION
Please return the completed Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire to the Offeror. The Offeror will submit this questionnaire with its proposal.
Thank you for your assistance.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .