Atch 7 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 25 KB Posted

Attached to
Z1DA--626A4-23-203 - Upgrade Fire Alarm System
Solicitation number
36C24925R0005
Issued by

About this file

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template for solicitation #36C24925R0005 related to upgrading the fire alarm system at Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA Medical Center in Murfreesboro, TN. The questionnaire must be completed by assessors evaluating contractors' past performance and submitted directly to Contract Specialist Jen Jamieson by April 2, 2025 at 1:00pm Central Time.

The PPQ contains two sections: Section A to be completed by the contractor with basic contract information, and Section B to be completed by the assessor evaluating five key performance areas: Management Effectiveness, Quality of Service/Workmanship, Timeliness/Schedule Adherence, Training/Technical Support, and Customer Satisfaction. Each area is rated on a scale from Outstanding to Unacceptable, with specific criteria defined for each rating level. The assessor must also indicate their willingness to award future contracts to the contractor and provide an overall performance rating with supporting rationale and comments.

View the file

Other files

Show all 16

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 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for Project 626A4-23-203, Upgrade Fire Alarm System at Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, VA Medical Center, 3400 Lebanon Road, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129.

PAST PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS

The NCO 9 Network Contracting Activity has issued a solicitation to Upgrade Fire Alarm System at Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, VA Medical Center, 3400 Lebanon Road, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 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.

The Offeror must provide this entire document to each of its assessors. The Assessor shall only submit past performance questionnaires directly to the Contract Specialist, Jen Jamieson by way of email at jen.jamieson@va.gov.

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.

Because this information is critical to the evaluation process, your time and effort in providing your assessment is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire should be completed as soon as possible but not later than 2 April 2025, at 1:00pm Central Time. Assessor is requested to send electronically to jen.jamieson@va.gov.

Assessor: Please do not send this information to the Offeror being evaluated.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and expeditious response to this request.

ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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: Do NOT send this PPQ to the rated contractor, document is to be forwarded to the Contracting Officer jen.jamieson@va.gov.

Solicitation Number
36C24925R0005
Project/Requirement
Project 626A4-23-203, Upgrade Fire Alarm System
Customer/Agency
Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, VA Medical Center, 3400 Lebanon Road, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 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 OfficialDate

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 .