ATTACHMENT_L-3_PPQ_2-7-18.doc
DOC document 89 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP for Quantitative Research Analytical Data Support (QRADS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 50310218R0002
- Issued by
- Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
ATTACHMENT L-3 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 2-7-18
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
Attachment L-3
Past Performance Questionnaire 50310218R0002
OFFEROR NAME___________________________
PROPOSED QRADS CHANNEL__________________
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Office of Acquisition, intends to obtain a qualified vendor under RFP No. 50310218R0002 to conduct and coordinate on behalf of the SEC. In order to accurately evaluate the Offeror’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance history of this Offeror.
Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. Upon completion of this form, please submit it as an e-mailed attachment. Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted to QRADS2@sec.gov NO LATER THAN 12:00PM EST February 9, 2017 in response to Channels 1, 2, 4, and 5. Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted to QRADS2@sec.gov NO LATER THAN 12:00PM EST February 23, 2017 for Channel 3. Please make the subject line of the e-mail read “50310218R0002 - Past Performance Questionnaire – Insert Evaluated Company’s Name.”
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
| Outstanding |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that SEC can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk. |
| Very Good |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that SEC may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk. |
| Acceptable |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the SEC may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. |
| Marginal |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect less than satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s performance record presents a high degree of risk. |
Unacceptable
The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.
Neutral
A "Neutral" rating indicates a quoter without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
CONTRACT NUMBER
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
| CONTRACT VALUE |
| CONTRACT TYPE |
CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY):
| NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS |
| DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED |
Additional Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
Performance Element
Outstanding
Very Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptab le
Neutral
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
(For example:
Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible?
(Met needs, performed successfully, accommodated changing requirements.)
2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(For example:
Did contractor show an understanding of scope requirements an appreciation complexity requirements?
And did contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
NO
9.
Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
YES
FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate
Cost Controll
Timeliness of Performance
Quality / Customer Satisfaction
Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)
PAGE
File details come from the government source that posted it.