Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 75N97026R00001
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template designed to evaluate contractor performance for subscription services similar to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) requirement. The questionnaire is completed by reference companies or agencies that have worked with the offeror and serves as a standardized evaluation tool for past performance assessment.
The PPQ is organized into four sections. Part I requires contract details including scope and complexity description, contract number, performance period, total contract value, and confirmation of work similarity to order management, invoicing, reporting, and fulfillment services. Part II contains seven performance rating categories: Quality of Services (invoice accuracy, delivery timeliness, data quality), Timeliness of Performance, Responsiveness (communication and customer support), Technical Capability (online systems and data functions), EDI Invoice Generation and Transmission (EDIFACT compliance), Management/Coordination, and Overall Customer Satisfaction. Evaluators rate each area using a five-point scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) plus a Not Applicable option, with mandatory comments required for any Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings. Part III requests an overall recommendation regarding the contractor's ability to perform subscription services, offering five recommendation options from Definitely Would Recommend to Definitely Would Not Recommend. Part IV includes a certification statement requiring the evaluator's signature and date, with definitions provided for each rating level to ensure consistent evaluation standards.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 00001.pdf | ||
| Amendment 00001 Attachment.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - SOW_NLM_Subx.pdf | ||
| SOL_75N97026R00001_NLM_Subx.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - SOW Attachment - Serial Title List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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 Questionnaire (PPQ) Offeror Being Evaluated: ___________________________________ Reference Company/Agency:__________________________________ Project Name/Contract: _____________________________________ Contract Number: ___________________________ Performance Period: From ____________________ To ________________ Total Contract Value: $_____________________ Reference Completed By: ________________________ Title: _________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ Email: _________________________________
PART I – CONTRACT DETAILS
1. Briefly describe the scope and complexity of the work the contractor performed under this contract. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
1. Was the contractor’s work on this project similar in difficulty and scope to the type of services for which you are providing a reference (order management, invoicing, reporting, and fulfillment)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If No, please explain: _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PART II – GENERAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS
Instructions: Please rate each of the following performance areas based on your experience with the contractor. Use the scale below. Space is provided for comments in support of the ratings.
| Performance Area |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. Quality of Services (accuracy of invoices, timeliness of delivery, data quality) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 2. Timeliness of Performance (meeting delivery/renewal deadlines) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 3. Responsiveness (communication, claims resolution, customer support) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 4. Technical Capability (online system performance, data exports, search functions) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 5. EDI Invoice Generation and Transmission (EDIFACT compliance) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 6. Management/Coordination (project oversight, issue management) |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 7. Overall Customer Satisfaction |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
Evaluator Comments (required for any “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings): _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
PART III – OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
Given what you know today about the contractor’s ability to perform subscription services similar to the NLM requirement, please indicate your overall recommendation:
☐ Definitely Would Recommend ☐ Probably Would Recommend ☐ Might or Might Not Recommend ☐ Probably Would Not Recommend ☐ Definitely Would Not Recommend Comments on Overall Recommendation: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
PART IV – CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the information provided in this questionnaire is accurate and reflects my honest evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
Signature: __________________________________ Date: ____________________
Return Instructions Completed questionnaires should be emailed or mailed to:
Contracting Activity: ________________________________________________ Email: ________________________________
Rating Definitions
· Exceptional: Exceeded contract requirements with no significant problems.
· Very Good: Met and occasionally exceeded requirements with minimal issues.
· Satisfactory: Met contract requirements in most respects.
· Marginal: Did not meet some requirements; corrective actions were slow or ineffective.
· Unsatisfactory: Failed to meet most requirements despite corrective actions.
· N/A: Not applicable to this contract.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .