Revised ATTACHMENT 3_ Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 11 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Regional Innovation Clusters Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47QACA26R0295
About this file
This file is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed to evaluate contractor performance on federal contracts. The questionnaire establishes three confidence rating levels—High Confidence, Medium Confidence, and Low Confidence—based on the offeror's understanding of requirements, responsiveness to the Statement of Objectives (SOO), proposed approach, staffing plan, and likelihood of successful contract performance with varying levels of government intervention.
The Performance Rating Form captures evaluation data across eight specific performance elements organized into four categories: Technical Performance (Quality of Technical Approach and Understanding of Requirements), Timeliness of Performance (Effective and Efficient Use of Resources and Timeliness of Performance), Quality and Customer Satisfaction (Quality of Performance/Customer Satisfaction, Business Behavior, and Communication), and Cost Control (Cost Control). Each element uses a three-tier rating system of Outstanding, Good, or Acceptable. The form requires identifying information including company name, address, contract number, period of performance, contract value, contract type, evaluator details, and includes a yes/no question regarding future business intent. Additional space is provided for evaluator comments. This template is intended for use in evaluating past performance of contractors bidding on the Regional Innovation Clusters (RICs) solicitation 47QACA26R0295, where the Small Business Administration is seeking contractor services to establish public-private partnerships that leverage federal, state, and local resources to promote technology innovation and economic development.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Revised ATTACHMENT 5_ QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Revised ATTACHMENT 1_ PROVISION_CLAUSE PACKAGE.docx | DOCX document | |
| Revised Solicitation RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Revised Pricing ATTACHMENT 4.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitation RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 3_ Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 5_ QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 6_ Sample PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 1_ PROVISION_CLAUSE PACKAGE.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 4_ Price Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 RICs SOO.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 12
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
Past Performance Questionnaire The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
| High Confidence |
| The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach that is responsive to all elements of the statement of objectives (SOO) with high level of detail and clarity, includes its proposed cluster qualifications and staffing plan, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention. |
| Medium Confidence |
| The Government has medium confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach that is responsive to all or majority of elements of the statement of objectives (SOO), includes its proposed cluster qualifications and staffing plan, and will be successful in performing the contract with medium Government intervention. |
| Low Confidence |
| The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement because the offeror is not responsive to all elements of the statement of objectives (SOO) and therefore does not propose a sound approach and would not be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention. |
Performance Rating Form
Name of Company Evaluated:
Address of Company Evaluated:
| Contract Number: |
| Contract Period of Performance |
| Contract Value |
| Contract Type |
Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer Representative Name, Address, Telephone Number and Email Address
Type of Services Performed:
| Name of Evaluator, Company/Agency, Address, Telephone Number and Email Address |
| Date Evaluation Provided |
| Performance Element |
| Outstanding |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)
1. Quality of Technical Approach
(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)
2. Understanding of the Requirement
(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies, and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
Timeliness of Performance
3. Effective and Efficient use of Resources
(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)
4. Timeliness of Performance
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)
Quality / Customer Satisfaction
5. Quality of Performance/Customer Satisfaction
(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)
6. Business Behavior
(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)
7. Communication
(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)
Cost Control
8. Cost Control
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost-effective manner?)
| For #9, Please Answer “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate |
| YES or No |
9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
Additional Comment Form Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .