Attachment 2 PPIQ 19AQMM26Q0030.docx
DOCX document 155 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM26Q0030
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Information Questionnaire (PPIQ) for a federal contract opportunity related to ATS-G Servers & Installation Services for the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in Mexico. The questionnaire is designed to collect detailed performance ratings from previous clients, covering 23 specific evaluation areas including contract milestone achievement, cost performance, personnel quality, project management, technical responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and overall contractor effectiveness.
The associated federal contract opportunity involves providing hardware, software, and installation services as a donation to the Mexican National Migration Institute to implement the Automated Targeting Systems Global (ATS-G) tool. The solicitation (19AQMM26Q0030) is managed by the Department of State Office of Acquisition Management, with the broader goal of supporting INL's mission to minimize international crime and illegal drug impacts by enhancing partner nations' security institutions and technological capabilities. The questionnaire allows potential clients to rate contractor performance across multiple dimensions using a 0-4 scale, with 4 representing outstanding performance and 0 indicating unsatisfactory performance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 26Q0030 A0001 QandA.pdf | ||
| 19AQMM26Q0030-A0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3- PPR Information Form (26Q0030).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Spreadsheet 26Q0030-A0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Brand Name Justification 26Q0030 SAM.gov.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Pricing Spreadsheet 26Q0030.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 19AQMM26Q0030 SF1449.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 Information Questionnaire
Past Performance Information Questionnaire for:_[Insert Name of Offeror]
Respondent: Please fill in the following table:
1. Complete Name and Title of Responder
2. Company or Agency Name, Address, Telephone Number, Facsimile Number (w/Area Code), and
E-mail Address
3. Contract Name or Title, Contract Number and Type of Contract
4. Signature
4 = Outstanding
Performance was substantially and consistently above contract requirements. Contractor displayed an overall superior understanding of contract requirements, and used innovative approaches leading to enhanced performance.
3 = Good
Performance was above minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a thorough understanding of contract requirements.
2 = Satisfactory
Performance met minimum contract requirements.
1 = Marginal
Performance was below minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a lack of thorough understanding of contract requirements in one or more significant performance areas.
0 = Unsatisfactory
Performance completely failed to meet the minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a total lack of understanding of contract requirements.
NA = Not Applicable
DK = Don’t Know
No knowledge available to respond to this question.
For any rating(s) less than 2, please attach an explanatory narrative. We greatly appreciate your time and assistance in completing this questionnaire.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Attachment 2– PPIQ RFQ- 19AQMM26Q0030
1. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in the following areas:
Meeting contract milestones? Submitting deliverables timely? Adherence to contract schedules?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to perform within the contract ceiling or estimated cost?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
3. Did the contractor utilize cost efficiencies in performance of your contract?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
4. How would you rate the contractor’s cost performance?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
5. Did the contractor submit accurate and timely invoices?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
6. If proposals were generated for changes, requests for equitable adjustment, or claims, how would you rate the reasonableness of the pricing?
7 How would you rate the contractor’s key personnel performance?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
8 How would you rate the contractor’s ability to recruit and retain strong, well-qualified key personnel?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
9. Did the contractor utilize an effective project management system that included planning, budgeting, status tracking, reporting, baseline management, critical path analysis, and work breakdown structure?
10. Has there been a positive or negative trend in contract performance (“0” would be a very negative trend, “4” would be a very positive trend)
11. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to create teaming/partnering relationships to achieve project goals?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
12. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to integrate activities with other contractors on multiple contractor sites?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
13. Was the Statement of Work executed effectively by the contractor in a consistently high quality manner?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
14. How would you rate the contractor’s responsiveness to technical direction?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
Attachment 2– PPIQ RFQ 19AQMM26Q0030 Past Performance Information Questionnaire for: _[Insert Name of Offeror]
15. Was the contractor effective in subcontract management and did it meet subcontracting goals?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
16. Did the contractor provide an effective and efficient transition from the previous contractor?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
17. Did the contractor effectively manage regulatory compliance programs and regulatory interfaces?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
18. Did the contractor’s corporate office effectively support your contract?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
19. Did the contractor develop and implement an effective quality assurance program?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
20. Did the contractor effectively implement human resources requirements and manage labor relations?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
21. Did the contractor manage effectively including cooperation with the technical representatives, the Contracting Officer, and other stakeholders showing flexibility and responsiveness?
22. Was the contractor effective in working with organized labor, community groups, media, and other stakeholders?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
23. Provide an overall assessment of the contractor’s performance.
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0]
24. Would you hire this Company again?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Please Provide Any Additional Comments Below
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .