Attachment 4 - USFK_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.docx
DOCX document 128 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USFK TMC Services
- Solicitation number
- 47QMCB26R0006
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed to evaluate contractor performance on Travel Management Company (TMC) services contracts for United States Forces Korea (USFK). The questionnaire is structured in two parts: Part 1 requests an open-ended description of the contract effort to assess scope, complexity, and relevance to current requirements, while Part 2 requires evaluators to rate performance across nine areas using a five-point scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) or N/A. The standard performance rating categories include Quality of Product/Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, and Utilization of Small Business, with three additional lines available for contract-specific evaluation criteria.
The questionnaire requires completion by evaluators with direct knowledge of the contractor's past performance and submission to russell.walter@gsa.gov and onthego@gsa.gov. The template requests detailed evaluator and project information, including the name and contact details of government or commercial project managers, contract/order numbers, performance periods, and total contract values. The accompanying appendices provide standardized definitions aligned with the Department of Defense's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), ensuring consistency in performance documentation across federal evaluations. The questionnaire concludes with an overall recommendation section where evaluators indicate their willingness to award future contracts to the contractor based on demonstrated performance capability.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
Attachment 4 – USFK WW Past Performance Questionnaire v2.1 March 2022 DoD Travel Management Company (TMC) Services for United States Forces Korea (USFK) Attachment 4 – Past Performance Questionnaire March 2022 – v2.1
Past Performance Questionnaire RFQ Number: TBD Due Date: TBD EST on Click here to enter a date.
Email completed questionnaire to: russell.walter@gsa.gov, and onthego@gsa.gov.
Contractor Name:
EVALUATOR INFORMATION
Commercial Client Government Client
| Name: | ____________ | |
| Address: | __________________________________________________________________ |
City State Zip Code Project Name:
Contract Number/Order Number:
| Performance Period: |
| Total Contract Value |
(including base & all options):
Government or Commercial Project Manager Contact:
| Name: | Title: | Phone Number: | Fax number: | E-mail address: |
| Alternate Government or Commercial Project Manager Contact: |
Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
Fax number:
E-mail address:
PART 1: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Instructions: This part consists of an open-ended question to determine the scope, complexity, and relevance of the project to the current requirement.
1. Contract Effort Description
PART 2: GENERAL PERFORMANCE Instructions:
Please rate each of the following areas based on the evaluation scale included in Appendix A. Definitions for the performance areas to be rated are included in Appendix B. Other evaluation areas that are unique to the contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere should be added to the table. Lines 7-9 are in the table for this purpose, but additional lines can be added by references. Space to include comments to support ratings is provided in the ‘Evaluator Comments’ section.
| Performance Areas |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. Quality of Product/Service |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 2. Schedule |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 3. Cost Control |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 4. Business Relations |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 5. Management of Key Personnel |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 6. Utilization of Small Business |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 7. Other Area - |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 8. Other Area - |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 9. Other Area - |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| Overall Recommendation: |
| Definitely Would |
| Probably Would |
| Might or Might Not |
| Probably Would Not |
| Definitely Would Not |
| Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what they promised in their proposal, I |
| award to them today given that I had a choice. |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
EVALUATOR COMMENTS:
Appendix A - PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS The Federal Government uses the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to document contractor performance information that is required by Federal Regulations. Past performance information entered into CPARS is available to Federal agencies through a separate system called the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for source selection purposes. The ratings and definitions used in this questionnaire are identical to those used in CPARS.
| Rating | Definition |
| Exceptional | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory | Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal | Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. |
| Unsatisfactory | Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
Appendix B – PERFORMANCE AREA DEFINITIONS
Quality of Product/Service – Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract/order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). For example: Are reports/data accurate? Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract/order? Does the Contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards? Assess the degree of customer (Government or Commercial) technical direction required to solve problems that arise during performance.
For Operations Support - Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality objectives such as ability to produce, reliability, maintainability and ability to inspect. The evaluator must be flexible in how contractor success is measured; e.g., using data from field reliability and maintainability and failure reports, user comment and acceptance rates, and scrap and rework rates. Did the contractor demonstrate continuous improvement, quality and reliability leadership that reflects progress in quality management?
Cost Control - (Not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment) – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost. For example, does the contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)? Did the contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings? Were billings current, accurate and complete? Are the contractor’s budgetary internal controls adequate?
Business Relations – Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.
Is interaction between the contractor and the customer satisfactory or does it need improvement?
Include the adequacy of the contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the contractor’s management of customer property if a substantial amount of property has been provided to the contractor under the contract/order.
Address the timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontract costs. Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.
Assess the prime contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team.
Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the competition of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance). This evaluation of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contributes to or effects the schedule variance. This element applies to contract/order closeout activities as well as contract performance. Instances of adverse actions such as assessment of liquidated damages, or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract/order schedule and should therefore be noted in the evaluation.
Management of key Personnel (Applicable when the contract/order contains a Key Personnel clause) – Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel. For example, how well did the contractor match the qualifications of the key position, as described in the contract/order, with the person who filled the key position? Did the contractor support key personnel so they were able to work effectively? If a key person did not perform well, what action was taken by the contractor to correct this? If a replacement of a key person was necessary, did the replacement meet or exceed the qualifications of the position as described in the contract/order schedule?
Utilization of Small Business (Applicable only to Government contracts with small business clauses) – FAR subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contain statutory requirements for complying with the Small Business subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Businesses to participate in contract/order performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract/order. Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to Small Business participation (including FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small businesses and FAR 52.219-9, small b=business Subcontracting Plan (when required)). Assess any Small Business participation goals, to include Ability One goals, which are stated separately in the contract/order. Assess achievement on each individual goal stated within the contract/order of subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.
| Defense Travel Management Office |
| 1 |
Department of Defense | Defense Human Resources Activity
| Defense Travel Management Office |
| 7 |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .