ATTACHMENT G_PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE_NX EQ TEE SCANNING SYSTEMS.docx

DOCX document 35 KB Posted

Attached to
NX EQ Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) Scanning Systems
Solicitation number
36C10X27R0011
Issued by

About this file

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire form for the NX EQ Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) Scanning Systems solicitation issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic Acquisition Center Frederick under solicitation number 36C10X27R0011. The document serves as a template for prospective contractors to provide information regarding their relevant past performance experience on similar projects and contracts.

The questionnaire is designed to evaluate contractor capability and experience in delivering TEE scanning systems or comparable medical equipment and services. Respondents are required to document their past performance on projects of similar scope, complexity, and technical requirements, including details such as contract values, performance timelines, customer references, and demonstrated quality of work. This evaluation criterion allows the government to assess the offeror's ability to successfully execute the requirements of the NX EQ TEE scanning systems procurement and is a standard component of the competitive evaluation process for commercial items under FAR 12.2.

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

Attachment G Past Performance Questionnaire

SOLICITATION NO.: 36C10X27R0011

DESCRIPTION: NX EQ TEE SCANNING SYSTEMS – Brand Name Philips Healthcare EPIQ CVx® or Equal

Offerors: Please Send Each Reference Cited in Submitted Proposal (Maximum of Five References from Past Three Years)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT OFFICE (EPO)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

TO: Courtney Chattman and Jessica Smith E-MAIL: Courtney.Chattman@va.gov and Jessica.Smith32@va.gov

VA EPO is currently in the process of awarding a contract for the solicitation described above. The offeror identified below has provided your organization’s name as a reference under the contract described below:

Offeror Name:

(Insert Offeror’s Name Here)

Contract Number:
(Insert Applicable Contract Number Here)

Please rate the offeror in each of the categories on this questionnaire. See “Rating Guidelines” section for detailed description of categories and ratings. There is room for comments where you deem remarks would be helpful to our evaluation (see ‘Comment from Reference’ under “Offeror Evaluation.” Please note that the past performance evaluators for this solicitation may contact you for further details in making a fair assessment of this offeror’s past performance. Thank you for your organization’s assistance in fairly evaluating offeror proposals for this solicitation.

Please E-mail Questionnaire to: Courtney.Chattman@va.gov and Jessica.Smith32@va.gov by December 15, 2026, at 10:00 AM CT.

Name of Reference:
(Reference Complete These Sections)

Title of Reference:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Name of Organization:

Contract Period of Performance (Month/Day/Year Begin and End):

Total Contract Value (Base and All Option Years):

Options Exercised on Contract (Yes/No)?

Brief Description of Services/Commodity Provided by Offeror:

Show Cause Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Stop Work Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Termination for Convenience, Cause, or Default Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Rating Guidelines:

Rating
Quality of Service
Cost Control
Timeliness of Performance
Business Relations
1: Unsatisfactory
Offeror is not in compliance and has jeopardized achievement of contract objectives
Offeror is unable to manage costs effectively
Offeror delays have jeopardized performance
Responses to inquiries and issues are not effective
2: Satisfactory
Minor inefficiencies and errors have been identified
Offeror is usually effective in managing costs
Offeror is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries and issues is usually effective
3: Excellent
Offeror is in compliance with contract requirements and delivers quality services
Offeror is effective in managing costs and submits proper invoices
Offeror is effective in meeting and exceeding milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries have been effective and/or exceeded expectations and established deadlines

Offeror Evaluation:

Rating (List Number Based on Rating Guidelines Above)
Category
Description
Quality of Service
In compliance with contract requirements, submits accurate reports/deliverables, has effective personnel, and has achieved/maintained technical excellence:

Comment from Reference: _______________________

Cost Control
Has achieved efficiencies in costs, managed costs effectively, and has submitted timely/accurate invoices with supporting documentation:
Timeliness of Performance
Has met milestones, is reliable, is responsive to technical direction, and has completed milestones on-time or ahead of schedule:
Business Relations
Has maintained effective management of contract, has exhibited reasonable/cooperative behavior, is responsive to contract requirements, is responsive to inquiries/issues, and is proactive about resolving problems:
|_| YES |_| NO
Overall Satisfaction
Would you (reference) choose to work with this offeror again?
Name of Reference:
(Reference Complete These Sections)

Title of Reference:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Name of Organization:

Contract Period of Performance (Month/Day/Year Begin and End):

Total Contract Value (Base and All Option Years):

Options Exercised on Contract (Yes/No)?

Brief Description of Services/Commodity Provided by Offeror:

Show Cause Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Stop Work Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Termination for Convenience, Cause, or Default Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Rating
Quality of Service
Cost Control
Timeliness of Performance
Business Relations
1: Unsatisfactory
Offeror is not in compliance and has jeopardized achievement of contract objectives
Offeror is unable to manage costs effectively
Offeror delays have jeopardized performance
Responses to inquiries and issues are not effective
2: Satisfactory
Minor inefficiencies and errors have been identified
Offeror is usually effective in managing costs
Offeror is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries and issues is usually effective
3: Excellent
Offeror is in compliance with contract requirements and delivers quality services
Offeror is effective in managing costs and submits proper invoices
Offeror is effective in meeting and exceeding milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries have been effective and/or exceeded expectations and established deadlines
Rating (List Number Based on Rating Guidelines Above)
Category
Description
Quality of Service
In compliance with contract requirements, submits accurate reports/deliverables, has effective personnel, and has achieved/maintained technical excellence:
Cost Control
Has achieved efficiencies in costs, managed costs effectively, and has submitted timely/accurate invoices with supporting documentation:
Timeliness of Performance
Has met milestones, is reliable, is responsive to technical direction, and has completed milestones on-time or ahead of schedule:
Business Relations
Has maintained effective management of contract, has exhibited reasonable/cooperative behavior, is responsive to contract requirements, is responsive to inquiries/issues, and is proactive about resolving problems:
|_| YES |_| NO
Overall Satisfaction
Would you (reference) choose to work with this offeror again?
Name of Reference:
(Reference Complete These Sections)

Title of Reference:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Name of Organization:

Contract Period of Performance (Month/Day/Year Begin and End):

Total Contract Value (Base and All Option Years):

Options Exercised on Contract (Yes/No)?

Brief Description of Services/Commodity Provided by Offeror:

Show Cause Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Stop Work Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Termination for Convenience, Cause, or Default Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?

Rating
Quality of Service
Cost Control
Timeliness of Performance
Business Relations
1: Unsatisfactory
Offeror is not in compliance and has jeopardized achievement of contract objectives
Offeror is unable to manage costs effectively
Offeror delays have jeopardized performance
Responses to inquiries and issues are not effective
2: Satisfactory
Minor inefficiencies and errors have been identified
Offeror is usually effective in managing costs
Offeror is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries and issues is usually effective
3: Excellent
Offeror is in compliance with contract requirements and delivers quality services
Offeror is effective in managing costs and submits proper invoices
Offeror is effective in meeting and exceeding milestones and delivery schedule
Responses to inquiries have been effective and/or exceeded expectations and established deadlines
Rating (List Number Based on Rating Guidelines Above)
Category
Description
Quality of Service
In compliance with contract requirements, submits accurate reports/deliverables, has effective personnel, and has achieved/maintained technical excellence:
Cost Control
Has achieved efficiencies in costs, managed costs effectively, and has submitted timely/accurate invoices with supporting documentation:
Timeliness of Performance
Has met milestones, is reliable, is responsive to technical direction, and has completed milestones on-time or ahead of schedule:
Business Relations
Has maintained effective management of contract, has exhibited reasonable/cooperative behavior, is responsive to contract requirements, is responsive to inquiries/issues, and is proactive about resolving problems:
|_| YES |_| NO
Overall Satisfaction
Would you (reference) choose to work with this offeror again?

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .