ICF_Catalog_Backup_ _Recovery_Software_ _Maintenance_-_Past_Performance_Questionaire_-_AG-64WC-S-14-0001.pdf

ICF Catalog Recovery Software AG-64WC-S-14-0001 Past Performance Questionnaire

We would like to thank you in advance for taking time out of your busy schedule to respond to this request for past performance information. Your name was submitted as a reference by an Offeror (or their sub-contractor) in response to a solicitation indicating they had recently provided you similar work. We would like to obtain your opinion of how well the Offeror (or their sub-contractor) performed. By law, the Government will not disclose the names of individuals providing reference information during discussions with the Offeror; however it will be used to form the basis for evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. If additional space is needed, please expand the document or attach additional pages. Please complete this questionnaire and email or fax your response by the due dates to the individual listed below. Thank you again for your time and effort.

REQUESTOR (Organization requesting your rating of the Offeror’s service):

Requesting Unit: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Information Technology Center

Project: ICF Catalog Recovery Software for use in an IBM Mainframe environment

Response Due: JUNE 23, 2014

5:00 pm EST

Email: jennifer.adams@ocio.usda.gov Fax: 816-926-2804

RATER INFORMATION (Person providing the rating of Offeror’s service):

Your Name: Date Questionnaire completed:

Position/Title: Email Address:

Organization: Phone Number:

Length of involvement with Offeror: Fax Number:

Role relative to the project/contract:

OFFEROR (this is the Offeror to be rated):

Offeror Company Name:

Name of Contact: Email address:

Role of Contact: Phone Number:

Reseller Company Name (Complete if acquired through a reseller):

Contract Information (Complete used existing contract or created a new contract):

Contracted through (Agency, Department):

Contract#: Type: -Competitive

Set Aside?:

Contracting Officer: CO Email address:

CO Phone Number: CO Fax Number:

Period of Performance: Contract Value:

Title or Description of Contract:

RATING PAST PERFORMANCE: Please provide your experience with the Offeror. If a “poor” or

“unsatisfactory” rating is given, please discuss at end of questionnaire.

Excellent: Performance requirements are exceeded. When minor problems occur, highly corrective actions are taken, which resulted in improved performance and quality: Complaints are negligible or unfounded.

Good: Performance requirements are met. When minor problems occur, highly corrective actions are taken, Complaints, though well-founded, are few and relatively minor.

Fair: Performance requirements are met. When minor problems occur, satisfactory corrective actions are taken.

Complaints are balanced by reports of good work.

Poor: Few performance requirements are met. Performance reflects serious problems and ineffective corrective actions taken. Many significant, serious and well-founded complains have occurred.

Unsatisfactory: Most performance requirements are not met and recovery is not likely. Customer complaints are substantial or numerous and are well-founded.

NA or Neutral: This rating is used when the offeror has no previous past performance or past performance risk is neutral and points cannot be assessed against the offeror.

mailto:jennifer.adams@ocio.usda.gov

QUALITY OF SOFTWARE E G F P U NA

Ability to integrate with existing environment

Backing up of ICF Catalog

Recovery of ICF Catalog

Diagnostic capabilities

ACCESS TO MANUFACTURE TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Availability of OEM Help Desk support (during normal work hours)

Availability of OEM after-hours support (evenings, weekends, holidays)

Quality of OEM help desk support within a responsive time frame

Availability of firmware updates and bug fixers

Updates are accurate and well documented.

QUALITY MAINTENANCE/SUPPORT

Early Identification of Problems and Timely Resolution

Accurate and through reports

Offeror’s problem tracking, reporting, and escalation

Offeror help desk met expectations in resolving problems

Satisfactorily respond to the deficiencies cited in a timely manner

Quality assurance methods

TIMELINESS OF PERORMANCE

Meeting deadlines in accordance with the contract and agreed-upon schedules

Responsive to changing priorities or unique requirements

Planning, Estimating and Scheduling

How would you rate the firm's responsiveness to emergency situations

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Good relationship with technical personnel

Good relationship with contracting personnel

Cooperation in solving problems

Flexibility in their business dealings with your organization

Responsiveness to your basic requirements and/or to minor changes in the requirements

Understanding of the customer’s requirements

COST CONTROL E G F P U NA

Invoicing (accuracy, completeness, and timeliness) and cost tracking

Control of Costs (remain within budget, efficiencies)

Extent meet proposed cost estimates

Tendency to propose unnecessary changes with price increases

Demonstrated reasonableness of pricing for added equipment

Flexibility for rebates/refunds of annual support when devices are dropped from maintenance during performance period.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE E G F P U NA

Contract Compliance

Subcontract Administration (if applicable)

Recruitment/Retention

Account Management Support

Please discuss any “Poor” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings from above:

What are some of the most significant Offeror Weaknesses?

What are some of the most significant Offeror Strengths?

Based on the Offeror’s overall performance, would you recommend them?

Yes No NA Comments

Do you know of anyone else who can provide information regarding this Offeror’s performance?

Name Email address Phone Number Fax Number