Atch 3 Past Performance Questionnaire York.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C24926R0064
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template used by the VA's NCO 9 Network Contracting Activity to evaluate contractor performance for Solicitation 36C24926R0064, which concerns video surveillance security upgrades at the Alvin C. York Campus VA Medical Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The questionnaire is completed in two sections: Section A is filled out by the prospective contractor and includes identifying information such as company name, point of contact, and contract award details (award number, amount, and period of performance); Section B is completed by independent assessors knowledgeable of the contractor's performance and rates the contractor across five major evaluation categories: Management Effectiveness, Quality of Service and Workmanship, Timeliness/Adherence to Schedules, Training/Technical Support, and Customer Satisfaction.
The assessment uses a five-point rating scale (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) with detailed definitions for each level. Assessors evaluate specific performance metrics within each category—such as personnel experience, documentation quality, service timeliness, invoice accuracy, and complaint resolution—and provide written rationales for ratings below "Good." The questionnaire concludes with an overall contractor performance rating and a question regarding the assessor's willingness to recommend the contractor for future awards. Completed questionnaires must be submitted to the Contract Specialist (lara.hampton@va.gov) and Contracting Officer (jeannette.morphew@va.gov), or if unavailable, contractors may submit their most recent CPARS evaluation as an alternative documentation of past performance.
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
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
SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for Project 626A4-22-104_Video Surveillance Security (York) at the TN Valley Healthcare System (TVHS) Alvin C. York Campus VA Medical Center, 3400 Lebanon Pike, Murfreesboro, TN 37129.
PAST PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS
The NCO 9 Network Contracting Activity has issued a solicitation to upgrade the Video Surveillance Security at the Alvin C. York VA Medical Center, 3400 Lebanon Pike, Murfreesboro, TN 37129.
Past performance information will be used to evaluate proposals received. Section A is to be completed by the Offeror. Section A of the enclosed questionnaire lists the contractor who has identified your office as a source to evaluate their past performance. Section A also authorizes release of this information to NCO 9 Network Contracting Activity, Murfreesboro, TN.
Section B in its entirety is to be completed by the assessor(s). An individual assessor knowledgeable of the contractor’s quality of supplies and services rendered is requested to verify, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office. If evaluating more than one contract for the same contractor, use a separate questionnaire for each contract being evaluated.
If Offeror is unable to get Assessor information, please provide a copy of your most recent or final CPARS. In the absence of PPQs, the Government reserves the right to use CPARS as a way to review past performance.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and expeditious response to this request.
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION A: Contractor Information (to be completed by the contractor for who past performance information is being collected, prior to forwarding to assessors).
Note: Document is to be forwarded to the Contract Specialist, lara.hampton@va.gov and Contracting Officer jeannette.morphew@va.gov
| Solicitation Number |
| 36C24926R0064 |
| Project/Requirement |
| Project 626A4-22-104_Video Surveillance Security |
| Customer/Agency |
| TVHS, Alvin C. York Campus Medical Center 3400 Lebanon Pike, Murfreesboro, TN 37129. |
| 1. Prospective Government Contractor’s | _______________________________ |
| Name and Address | _______________________________ |
| _______________________________ | |
| _______________________________ | |
| 2. Contractor Point of Contact: | _______________________________ |
| 3. Phone Number (with area code): | _______________________________ |
| 4. Assessor Contract Award Number: | _______________________________ |
| 5. Description of Services: | _______________________________ |
6. Contract Award Date: _________ Contract Amount: Initial ________ Final ___________
7. Period of Performance: _______________________________
ASSESSOR INFORMATION:
Assessor Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address
8. Authorization is hereby granted to provide the information requested in this questionnaire to NCO 9 Network Contracting Activity, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Signature
| __________________________________________________ | ________________ | |
| Name and Title of Authorizing Official | Date |
SECTION B: Assessors Information (to be completed by assessors).
RATING SCALE Definitions
| Rating |
| Description |
| Outstanding |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal |
| Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable. |
The questions on the survey (see below) shall be rated in accordance with the definitions provided in the Rating Scale. Any unsatisfactory or marginal rating shall be supplemented with an explanation in the space provided.
Management Effectiveness
1. Rate the contractor's compliance with contractual requirements.
a. Offeror provided experienced personnel with technical and administrative abilities to meet contract requirements.
b. Offeror provided appropriate system documentation
c. Offeror’s overall management effectiveness
OUTSTANDING__GOOD__ACCEPTABLE__MARGINAL__UNACCEPTABLE__
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
Quality of Service and Workmanship
2. Rate the contractor's compliance with contractual requirements.
a. Offeror provided professional services
b. Offeror maintained the quality products/services
c. Offeror achieved throughput specifications
d. Offeror achieved accuracy specifications
e. Offeror achieved integration specifications (if applicable)
f. Offeror’s overall quality of products/services
OUTSTANDING__GOOD__ACCEPTABLE__MARGINAL__UNACCEPTABLE__
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
Timeliness/Adherence to Schedules
3. Delivery of service was within required time period specified by contract requirements.
a. Offeror delivered items timely as identified in your contract
b. Offeror was proactive in keeping you informed of schedule conflicts if they were going to occur
c. Offeror responded to emergency requirements in a timely manner
d. Overall offeror timeliness
OUTSTANDING__GOOD__ACCEPTABLE__MARGINAL__UNACCEPTABLE__
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
Training/Technical Support
4. Rate the contractor's ability to provide required training/provide adequate technical support.
a. Offeror provided useful quality training
b. Offeror provided prompt technical support after delivery
c. Offeror’s overall quality of training/technical support
OUTSTANDING__GOOD__ACCEPTABLE__MARGINAL__UNACCEPTABLE__
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
Customer Satisfaction
5. Rate the contractor's ability to satisfy Customer expectations. control cost and submit invoices.
Are invoices complete, accurate, and timely?
a. Offeror maintained a professional working relationship
b. Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in resolving customer complaints
c. Offeror was flexible in responding to urgent requirements
d. Overall customer satisfaction
OUTSTANDING__GOOD__ACCEPTABLE__MARGINAL__UNACCEPTABLE__
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
How would you feel about awarding another contract to this contractor?
__________ Would not hesitate to award another contract to this contractor.
__________ Would most likely award another contract to this contractor.
__________ Would think twice about awarding another contract to this contractor but would do so if no better alternative existed.
__________ Do not wish to award another contact to this contractor.
__________ Would not award another contract to this contractor.
PLEASE PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNED RATING:
Overall rating of contractor's performance (quality, schedule, business relations,) on contract being assessed.
| OUTSTANDING |
| GOOD |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
VII. General Comments:
ASSESSOR:
Identify your role in the contract award or administration and the period of your involvement.
| ROLE |
| PERIOD OF INVOLVEMENT |
Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer
Technical Project Lead/Project Officer
OTHERS
| ______________________________________________ | ___________________ | |
| (Signature) | (Date) |
| ______________________________________________ | ___________________ | |
| (Typed or Printed Name) | (Organization Name) |
(Phone Number)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .