Sol_Doc - RFP_Attachment_3 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).docx
DOCX document 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 75F40124R00064
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) that is intended to be used to evaluate a contractor's past performance on a federal contract. The PPQ provides rating definitions and criteria for evaluating the contractor's performance across various areas such as quality, personnel, resource utilization, timeliness, cost control, and overall satisfaction. The rater is instructed to provide narrative justification to support the ratings assigned.
The related federal contract opportunity is for a multi-phase/multi-site clinical studies and laboratory support Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Clinical Pharmacology. The contract is a 100% small business set-aside with a NAICS code of 541714 or 541715. The contract period is 5 years with a minimum guarantee of $2,500 and a maximum ceiling of $50 million. The scope includes conducting multiple Phase I clinical trials, providing laboratory studies and bioanalytical/biomarker support, and ensuring adequate contracting support to the FDA. Offerors must be registered in SAM.gov and proposals must include completed pricing worksheets.
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 B Page 5 of 5
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
<This section is to be completed by the offeror/quoter and provided to the reference with instructions to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the government Point of Contact.>
Contractor:
Contract Number:
Contract Name:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user, etc.):
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). |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits 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 report or letter. |
INDEX
Section I – Ratings Section II – Additional Narrative Justification Section III – Signature of Rater
Please provide any relevant information to support the above ratings.
<Note: When completing this questionnaire by e-mail, please do not use a color, such as red, to select the rating in section I of this questionnaire. Please underline it or increase the font size in black.>
Section I - Contractor Performance
1. How would you rate the quality of the Contractor’s conformance to contract requirements? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
Response
E VG S M U N/A
2. How would you rate the quality of Contractor’s personnel provided under the contract and level of customer service? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
3. How would you rate the Contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as delays in study recruitment, changes in study design, and/or replacement of required contract personnel? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
4. How would you rate the quality of the Contractor’s effective and efficient use of resources? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
5. How would you rate the adequacy of Contractor’s facilities for completion of the contract, as a whole? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
6. How would you rate the Contractor’s timeliness of performance? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
7. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Contractor’s cost control? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
8. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Contractor’s performance? Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
Section II - Additional Supporting Narrative, if required: <Include the number of the question to which this supporting narrative applies. Additional pages may be used.>
Section III
Signature of rater: _______________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ <Signature of rater is required, if faxed. It is not required if sent via e-mail directly from rater.>
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .