Attachment 3 Past Performance Survey.docx
DOCX document 14 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26124Q0770
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Survey that is to be completed by evaluators for a federal contract opportunity. The purpose of the survey is to obtain information about the past performance of the company being considered for award of a VA contract. The survey asks the evaluator to provide details on the contracts the company previously provided, such as the total contract amount, dates of performance, and contract number. It also asks the evaluator to rate the overall quality of the company's work and indicate if there were any performance issues or concerns. The survey is to be emailed to the VA point of contact listed. This Past Performance Survey is related to the federal contract opportunity for G099--Solicitation COED HCHV Washton County, Nevada, which is being solicited by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 21.
View the file
Other files
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 Survey
OFFEROR INSTRUCTIONS: A separate survey must be completed for each reference. The completed surveys must be included with the quote.
EVALUATOR INSTRUCTIONS: The Department of Veterans Affairs is considering the company listed below for award of a VA contract. Your comments would be appreciated regarding this company’s past performance. The name of the individuals providing reference information is confidential and will not be released or made publicly available. Email signed survey to Timothy.smith9de3@va.gov
Name of Company being evaluated:
Evaluator’s Name and signature:
Evaluator’s Company Name, Address and Phone number:
Indicate what contracts did this company provide for you? Provide the total contract amount, dates of performance, and contract number.
Evaluation Questions
Please rate the overall quality of work using a scale of (Excellent, Good, Fair, Marginal, Unacceptable). Comments in support of the rating are encouraged.
Were there any performance issues/concerns? If so, how were they handled?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .