Attachment 2 PP Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Safety Shoe Mobile
- Solicitation number
- HQ003424R0308
- Issued by
-
DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire related to a federal contract opportunity for a Safety Shoe Mobile service. The Solicitation Number is HQ0034-24-R-0308 and the contract is being awarded by the Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Service.
The questionnaire is seeking past performance information on the contractor's ability to provide a minimum of 5 different men's styles and 4 different women's styles of safety shoes at mobile shoe visits, with service visit frequencies ranging from quarterly to daily. The contractor must also provide safety shoe delivery services. The evaluation criteria include quality of service, timeliness/scheduling, business relations, and customer satisfaction, which will be rated on an Exceptional to Unsatisfactory scale. An overall past performance rating is also requested. Responses to this questionnaire are due by the date/time indicated in the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HQ003424R0308-0001.pdf | ||
| Mobile Safety Shoe Price Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HQ003424R0308 SafetyShoeMobile.pdf |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE DATA SHEET
| REFERENCE NAME/TITLE: |
| PHONE: |
| REFERENCE AGENCY: |
| EMAIL: |
Information Request Washington Headquarters Service/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror. As a reference for work performed by the firm, please complete the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. The questionnaire must be submitted to primary point of contact: safiyyah.i.vasquez.civ@mail.mil and secondary point of contract: before/by the date/time indicated on page 1, block 8 of the solicitation (SF1449).
a.) Quality of Service b.) Timeliness or Scheduling of Service c.) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction
In addition to this questionnaire, you may receive a follow-up phone call to confirm or clarify information. This is a major WHS/AD acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding this questionnaire or require assistance, please submit inquiries to safiyyah.i.vasquez.civ@mail.mil or call 571-243-6027. Thank you.
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 HQ0034-24-R-0308 Safety Shoe Mobile Past Performance Questionnaire
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1: CONTRACT DATA
Contract Number:
Contractor Name:
Contract Title:
Contractor Address:
Contract Value:
Contractor DUNS:
Contract Type:
Contract Award Date:
Agency/Org. Name:
Reporting Period (Start):
Place of Performance:
Reporting Period (End):
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Safety Shoe Mobile: Provided a minimum five different men styles and four different women styles at the mobile shoe visits.
Service Visit Frequency (Circle which applies): QUARTERLY MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY WEEKLY DAILY OTHER
Please identify which of the shoe delivery services below this Contractor performed at your facility:
(a) Mobile safety shoe shopping for employees at your location.
(b) Safety shoe delivery.
Please give any additional information concerning the shoe delivery services provided by this Contractor at this facility.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
RATING
The following ratings and definitions apply to the Quality of Product or Service, Schedule/Timeliness, Business Relations, and Customer Satisfaction factors:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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 constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there |
should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed was accomplished with |
some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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 |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower |
than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted 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 |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes 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 reports, or letters).
| N/A |
| N/A (not applicable) should be used if the rating category does not apply |
| Please explain all ratings of N/A |
SECTION 3: EVALUATION FACTORS
Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the ratings mentioned above.
Overall Past Performance Rating: Please provide an overall rating of the contractor’s past performance for the reference contract/delivery order.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on overall past performance rating: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
Quality of Product or Service. Assess the Contractor's conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards).
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Quality of Product or Service: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
Intentionally Left Blank
Timeless or Schedule of Services/Deliveries. Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance). This assessment of the Contractor's adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the Contractor's efforts during the assessment period that contributes to or effect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the assessment of liquidated damages, or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract schedule and should therefore be noted in the evaluation.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Schedule: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
Business Relations. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award, and management of subcontracts.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Business Relations: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
Customer Satisfaction
Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?
Yes
No
Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?
Yes
No
Provide comments on Customer Satisfaction:
END
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .