Attachment 4 - PPI Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 242 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Puerto Rico Hazardous Waste Disposal Contract
- Solicitation number
- SP450025R0003
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Information (PPI) Questionnaire for a federal contract solicitation related to hazardous waste services in Puerto Rico. The questionnaire is designed for a reference to evaluate a contractor's past performance across five key areas: quality of product/service, schedule adherence, management effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and overall performance. The evaluation uses a rating scale from N/A to Exceptional (1-5), with detailed definitions for each rating level.
The solicitation (SP450025R0003) is for hazardous waste removal, transportation, and disposal services within military installations or within a 50-mile radius of specified pickup locations. The contract will involve handling various waste types including RCRA hazardous wastes, non-RCRA wastes, state-regulated wastes, universal wastes, compressed gases, PCBs, and PFAS. Specifically excluded are infectious medical waste, ammunition, explosives, and radioactive materials. The document requires a detailed reference assessment to help evaluate the contractor's capabilities, with the reference being asked to provide nuanced feedback on the contractor's performance across multiple operational dimensions.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
As of: / /20
Once this document has been completed, the information contained becomes Source Selection Sensitive FAR 2.101 and 3.104.
Attachment # Solicitation #
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (PPI) QUESTIONNAIRE – OFFEROR
The offeror is solely responsible for ensuring references complete and submit this questionnaire to the Government by the required due date.
Section 1
OFFEROR TO COMPLETE THIS SECTION:
Offeror Firm Name:
Offeror Firm Address:
Offeror Firm DUNS:
Offeror Firm Email:
Offeror Firm Phone:
Offeror Firm FAX:
We are in the process of preparing our proposal for DLA Disposition Services’ Solicitation No.
_________________________, closing time and date ___________________________, to provide services at _______________________________________. As part of our proposal we have listed you as a reference for work performed by our firm for your firm/Agency.
Your input on our performance is therefore requested. Please complete Section of this document and then email the completed document (Section 1 2) to _ __________________________________________.
The Government must receive the completed document no later than the . Thank you.
4SP450025R0003
Stephen Ngotho
As of: / /
Once this document has been completed, the information contained becomes Source Selection
Attachment # Solicitation #
Contract #:
Role/Title for the Contract:
Email: Phone:
Section
OFFEROR TO COMPLETE THIS SECTION:
Reference Contract Title:
Reference POC Name:
How Long in this Role:
Firm/Agency Reference Works for:
Contract Performance Location:
Performance Start Date:
Total Contract Dollar Value: $ Description of Contract Requirements:
Contract Completion Date:
Hazardous Material/ Waste Streams Involved and Quantities/Volumes Disposed and Recycled:
Location of Pickup Point(s) or Other Services:
Frequency of Pickup(s) or Other Services (e.g. once a month):
Allowable Response Time after Notification for Performance (e.g., 30 days):
Types of Documents Contractor was required to Provide/Process (i.e. manifests, waste profiles, permits, etc.):
Significant Risks in Performance of the Contract:
What work was performed by the offeror?
Attachment # Solicitation #
Section
OFFEROR REFERENCE TO COMPLETE THIS SECTION:
Based on the following adjectival ratings scale, please evaluate the quality of the offeror’s performance by selecting the appropriate ratings and applying to elements I through V on the following pages.
SCALE:
NOT
APPLICABLE UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY VERY GOOD EXCEPTIONAL
N/A 1 2 3 4 5
DEFINITIONS:
EXCEPTIONAL: Performance met and exceeded many contractual requirements. 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 were highly effective.
VERY GOOD: Performance met and exceeded some contractual requirements. 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 were effective.
SATISFACTORY: Performance met 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.
MARGINAL: Performance did 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.
UNSATISFACTORY: Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective action(s) appear or was/were ineffective.
NOT APPLICABLE: Self-explanatory.
Attachment #
I. QUALITY OF PRODUCT/SERVICE
a. Compliance with contract requirements (to include regulatory compliance)
b. Accuracy of reports and documentation (e.g. manifests, bills of lading)
c. Manifesting and land disposal notifications (includes basal notifications)
d. Waste profiling
e. Compliance with transportation laws and regulations (DOT, maritime, foreign)
f. Packaging, labeling, and disposal
g. Demonstrated knowledge of hazardous waste laws and regulations
N/A 1 2 3 4 5
If assigning a rating of 2 or 1, please provide examples of how the contractor did not meet contract requirements:
If assigning a rating of 4 or 5, please provide examples of how the contractor exceeded contract requirements:
II. SCHEDULE
a. Adherence to transportation scheduling
b. Adherence to performance timeframes (removal of waste/Mgt services)
c. Adherence to performance timeframes (analysis)
d. Timeliness in submission of initial documentation/reports
e. Timeliness in submission of final documentation/reports
f. Advance notice and scheduling/receipt of correct and complete documents
N/A 1 2 3 4 5
If assigning a rating of 2 or 1, please provide examples of how the contractor did not meet contract requirements:
If assigning a rating of 4 or 5, please provide examples of how the contractor exceeded contract requirements:
# 4SP450025R0003
Attachment # Solicitation #
III. MANAGEMENT
a. Orientation toward the customer
b. Professionalism of staff
c. Interactions with the Government
d. Promptness in making notifications of problems encountered during performance
e. Flexibility and productiveness in problem solving
f. Effectiveness of corrective actions taken
N/A 1 2 3 4 5
If assigning a rating of 2 or 1, please provide examples of how the contractor did not meet contract requirements:
If assigning a rating of 4 or 5, please provide examples of how the contractor exceeded contract requirements:
As of: / /20
Solicitation #
IV. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
a. Compliance with all contract clauses and reporting requirements (e.g., safety, environmental, EEO, trafficking in persons, etc.)
b. Compliance with transportation laws and regulations (DOT, maritime, foreign)
c. Demonstrated knowledge of hazardous waste laws and regulations
N/A 1 2 3 4 5
If assigning a rating of 2 or 1, please provide examples of how the contractor did not meet contract requirements:
If assigning a rating of 4 or 5, please provide examples of how the contractor exceeded contract requirements:
V. OTHER COMMENTS (Include overall comments regarding highly rated or poorly rated performance):
Would you recommend this contractor for potential future awards? (Please check one of the following)
DEFINITELY WOULD
PROBABLY WOULD
MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
PROBABLY WOULD NOT
DEFINITELY WOULD NOT
If you have checked anything other than DEFINITELY WOULD recommend, please explain why:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .