Attachment _3 -Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP).docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Secured Facility Guard Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W564KV-21-R-0022
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a security services contract solicitation. The Theater Contracting Center is soliciting proposals to provide installation security services at multiple Department of Defense facilities in Germany, including the Combined Intelligence Center in Wiesbaden, Dagger Complex in Darmstadt, and European Technical Center in Mainz-Kastel. Offerors must provide references who will complete the past performance questionnaire, which evaluates offerors on quality of service, schedule, cost control, management, regulatory compliance, and overall performance on prior contracts. References will also be asked if they would recommend the offeror for similar requirements in the future. Relevant past performance includes tasks such as access control, walking or roving patrols, explosive detection dog services, monitoring intrusion detection systems, and operating vehicle x-ray equipment.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W564KV-21-R-0022 Amendment 04.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2_DD 254_Rev2_21JAN.pdf | ||
| W564KV-21-R-0022 Amendment 03.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2_ DD 254_Rev1_08JAN.pdf | ||
| Solicitation Questions_Answers_8 January 21.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment _1 - Price Matrix_Rev1_06JAN.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W564KV-21-R-0022 Amendment 02.pdf | ||
| W564KV-21-R-0022 Amendment 01.pdf | ||
| W564KV-21-R-0022.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2 - SFGS DD254.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment _1 - Price Matrix Guards.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
The Theater Contracting Center (TCC) is soliciting for a requirement to provide installation security services in Germany.
We would appreciate your assistance in providing the evaluation information below. This survey will be used to evaluate the past performance for the contractor and the contracting action identified below. The TCC may contact you to clarify or verify any information provided. The point of contact at the TCC is Stephanie Delosreyes, Contract Specialist, DSN (314) 542-6859/commercial (0631) 143-542-6859.
The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past five years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.
Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.
Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.
Your candid response to the questions is important to our evaluation effort and may affect the award outcome. Please provide specific examples in your responses and feel free to add pages if required. In accordance with OFPP Policy Letter Number 92-5, the names of individuals supplying past performance information will remain confidential.
PART I – REFERENCE DETAILS
Note: This section is to be completed by the Offeror. Fields 1-10 are required.
| 1 |
| Company Name |
| 2 |
| Point of Contact |
(Name, Title, Email, Phone #)
| 3 |
| Contract/Subcontract Number |
| 4 |
| Company Address |
| 5 |
| Contract Start Date: Contract Completion Date: |
| 6 |
| Place of Performance |
| 7 |
| Total Value of Contract |
(or estimated value if contract is incomplete)
| 8 |
| Description of Contract/ Contract Type (i.e. Fixed Price, Cost, |
IDIQ)
| 9 |
| Brief description of Services |
| 10 |
| Customer POC #1 (COR/KO/Other) |
(Name, Title, Agency/Company, Email, Phone)
| 11 |
| Customer POC #2 (COR/KO/Other) |
(Name, Title, Agency/Company, Email, Phone)
| 12 |
| Name of Procuring Agency (if known) |
PART II - EVALUATION
Note: PART II shall be completed by the individual identified in Blocks 10 or 11 above and emailed to BOTH stephanie.l.delosreyes2.civ@mail.mil & luke.m.maloney.civ@mail.mil SUBJECT: SFGS - Past Performance Questionnaire.
| 1. Was the contractor, for the subject contract listed above, the Prime or Subcontractor | |
| Prime Contractor | |
| Subcontractor |
| 2. Quality of Service (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED |
| 3. Schedule (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED |
| 4. Cost Control (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED (Use |
this IF Firm-Fixed Price)
| 5. Management (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED |
| 6. Regulatory Compliance (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED |
| 7. How would you rate this contractor’s overall performance? (Provide rationale for rating.) | |
| Outstanding | |
| Good | |
| Acceptable | |
| Marginal | |
| Unacceptable | |
| NOT RATED |
8. Given what you know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, would you recommend them for similar requirements in the future? (Provide rationale for response checked to the right .)
Would
Would Not
9. Please check which of the tasks below were performed under this contract, as related to the current requirement::
Access Control
Walking or Roving Patrols
Explosive detection dog services
Monitoring of intrusion detection systems
Operating vehicle x-ray equipment
10. Provide your contact information in the event there are additional questions regarding this evaluation.
Contact Name:
Organization Name:
Title:
Email:
Phone:
Today’s Date:
Signature:
11. Additional Comments:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .