ATTACHMENT D - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx

DOCX document 31 KB Posted

Attached to
S299--Non-Critical RME Cleaning & Disinfecting Services
Solicitation number
36C24824Q0387
Issued by

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This solicitation requests non-critical reusable medical equipment cleaning and disinfection services at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Medical Center campus locations in Lake Baldwin and Lake Nona, Florida. The contractor shall provide bi-annual deep cleaning for over 500 items of equipment located in radiology, oncology, and operating rooms, which are inventoried in detail. Services include inspecting and tagging equipment for cleaning; using only approved disinfectants; replacing parts like casters and tips as needed; and providing weekly and monthly reports on inventory, maintenance history, and ATP testing results to evaluate cleaning efficacy. The period of performance is one base year plus four option years. Services must be provided Monday through Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM at Lake Baldwin, and Monday through Saturday from 5:00AM to 12:00AM at Lake Nona. The Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration VISN 8 is the agency seeking these services.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
36C24824Q0387 0002.docx DOCX document
36C24824Q0387 0001.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT A - MEDICAL CENTER POLICY (MCP) 00Q-16.pdf PDF
36C24824Q0387.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT B - INVENTORY MAINTENANCE OVAMC LAKE NONA.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATTACHMENT C - CONTRACTOR REQUESTING CLARIFICATION.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
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

ATTACHMENT D

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

RFQ 36C24824Q0387, Non-Critical RME Cleaning & Disinfecting Services Section I is to be completed by the offeror and provide to their reference with instructions to complete Section II through IV and submit to the Contracting Officer prior to the offer due date/local time at block 8 of the SF1449. Contractor shall submit a completed copy of section I with their quote.

SECTION I:

Contractor:

Contractor EUI#:

Contract Number:

Contract Title:

Rater Name:

Rater Telephone:

Rater E-Mail Address:

Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user)

INDEX

Section I – Contractor Section II – Ratings Section III – Additional Narrative Justification Section IV – Signature of Rater Section V – Return Instructions Section VI – Rating Definitions

SECTION II-RATINGS
Select a Rating Category

Contractor Performance

1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s services provided?

Supporting narrative: see rating definitions

Choose an item.

2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs?

Choose an item.

3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the services provided?

Supporting narrative: see rating definitions

Choose an item.

4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as emergency calls for services?

Supporting narrative: see rating definitions

Choose an item.

5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?

Supporting narrative: see rating definitions

Choose an item.

6. How would you rate the contractor’s performance for disinfecting and cleaning of the Radiology, Oncology and Operating rooms?

Supporting narrative: see rating definitions

Choose an item.

8. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?

Choose an item.

SECTION III – Additional Supporting Narrative, if required.

Include the number of the question above to which this supporting narrative applies.

SECTION IV – Signature of Rater

Rater Name:

Signature of rater: _______________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ Signature of rater is not required if sent via e-mail directly from rater.

SECTION V – Return Instructions

None

SECTION VI – Rating Definitions

Rating
Definition
Note

Exceptional (E)

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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.
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 merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

(VG)

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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.
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.

Satisfactory (S)

Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be or were satisfactory.
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.

Marginal (M)

Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected 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).

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