Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- eMentor Foreign Language Course Instructors
- Solicitation number
- FA330026R0022
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire used to evaluate contractor performance on current or past contracts related to eMentor Foreign Language Instruction services for Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama under RFP FA33002600022.
The questionnaire is completed telephonically by points of contact identified by offerors and collected by the 42d Contracting Squadron's Past Performance team. It evaluates contractor performance across 25 assessment criteria using a six-point rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, and Neutral/Not Applicable), with detailed explanations required for Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings. Key evaluation areas include: overall software platform quality, site accessibility across multiple device types, virtual classroom functionality and international font support, helpdesk responsiveness and remote access capabilities, system redundancy and records maintenance, course scheduling, instructor recruitment across diverse languages including DoD Strategic Language List languages, quality of language instruction and curriculum, and assessment capabilities. The questionnaire also addresses specific operational requirements such as maintaining a Virtual School environment supporting wired and wireless connections across Windows and Mac operating systems, classroom features including HD video and collaborative whiteboard tools, class management systems with attendance and participant tracking, virtual resource library functionality, instructor vetting and hiring, professional development training for instructors, curriculum design tailored to specific languages and proficiency levels, and capacity to provide instruction in at least 50 languages for at least 1,000 students annually. The questionnaire is marked source selection sensitive per FAR 2.101 and 3.104.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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 5
RFP FA33002600022
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SUBJECT: Request for Current and Past Performance Evaluation
TO:
You have been identified as a point of contact for a past and/or present performance evaluation from ______________________________. This firm is currently being considered for a contract with the Government for providing eMentor Foreign Language and Instruction for the Air University on Maxwell Air Force Base, AL.
A member of the Past Performance team may be contacting you to telephonically complete the attached questionnaire. If you have any questions concerning this request contact Brian Thornton at 334-953-6497 or Kimberly Knott at 953-8552.
Thank you,
| KIMBERLY A. KNOTT | |
| Contracting Officer | |
| 42d Contracting Squadron |
WHEN FILLED IN, THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION
SENSITIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RFO 2.101 and 3.104
PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Please correct any information below known to be inaccurate:
Contractor’s Name: ____________________ Telephone Number: ____________________
Point of Contact: ______________________
Project Title/Description of Work: __________________________________________________
Contract Number Provided by Offeror: ______________________________________________
Total Dollar Amount:___________________ Annual Dollar Amount: __________________
Contract Period or Dates of Performance Provided by Offeror: ___________________________
Contractor performed as the Prime Contractor Sub-Contractor
B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION: Respondent will be contacted telephonically to complete.
Respondent: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________
Telephone Number: ___________________ Email Address: _____________________________
C. QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETION CONTACT:
PP Team Member: _________________________________Date: ________________________
D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, VG, S, M, U, and N) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. You will be asked to provide a brief explanation for any ratings of M or U.
E
VG
S
M
U
N
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
Neutral/Not Appicable
| Performance exceeded many of the element(s) of the requirement. |
| Performance exceeded some of the element(s) of the requirement. |
| Performance meets the element(s) of the requirement. |
| Performance does not meet some element(s) of the requirement. |
Performance does not meet most element(s) of the requirement.
Performance was not observed or not applicable.
Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.
| The Contractor: |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| 1. |
| What was the overall quality of the contractor’s software platform |
| 2. |
| Was the contractor’s site easy to access and navigate? |
| 3. |
| Could you log on to and use the contractor’s site with a variety of internet-enabled devices? (desktop, laptop, PC, MAC, hand-held device) |
| 4. |
| What was the overall quality of the contractor’s virtual classroom? |
| 5. |
| What was the overall quality of the classroom’s support of international fonts (e.g., Chinese characters)? |
| 6. |
| How was the classrooms’ support of a wide range of tools? (Video, text files, audio files, internet sites, writing space, chat area, etc) |
| 7. |
| What was the overall quality of the contractor’s helpdesk for any software platform issues? |
| 8. |
| Was the helpdesk able to remotely access the user’s computer to fix the problem? |
| 9. |
| How was the contractor’s system redundancy in the case that the primary system should fail? |
| 10. |
| What was the overall quality of the contractor’s record’s maintenance? |
| 11. |
| Was the contractor able to successfully schedule courses for those requiring classes? |
| 12. |
| How was the contractor’s ability to find a diverse array of native-speaking language instructor’s? (This would include any and all languages found on the Department of Defense’s Strategic Language List) |
| 13. |
| How was the overall quality of language instruction? |
| 14. |
| How was the overall quality of language curriculum? |
| 15. |
| How was the overall quality of language assessment? |
| 16. |
| Did the contractor operate and maintain a Virtual School which permits both wired and wireless internet connections and can be accessed by computers, laptops, and tablet devices running either Windows or Mac operating systems Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor operate and maintain the virtual school. |
| 17. |
| Did the contractor operate and maintain classrooms in the Virtual School environment that support High-Definition Video, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, PDF sharing, chat features, and international fonts and keyboard inputs; allow for shared audio, video, and shared web browser; and contain a fully collaborative whiteboard for live annotations Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor operate and maintain classrooms in the Virtual School Environment? |
| 18. |
| Did the contractor operate and maintain class management systems within the Virtual School to include class, participant and eMentor tracking, and scheduling and attendance tracking annotations __Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor operate and maintain class management systems within the Virtual School? |
| 19. |
| Did the contractor generate reports such as attendance and record keeping Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor generate reports such as attendance and record keeping. |
| 20. |
| Did the contractor maintain a virtual Resource Library or similar operation that allowed participants to upload, download, review and search for resources and materials Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor maintain the virtual resource library? |
| 21 |
| Was the contractor responsible for finding, vetting, and hiring qualified Language instructors (eMentors) IAW the PWS Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor find, vet, and hire qualified language instructors (eMentors). |
| 22 |
| Was the contractor responsible for providing system training and ensuring professional development training for language Instructors (eMentors) IAW the PWS Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor ensure that system training and professional development training was provided to Language Instructors (eMentors)? |
| 23 |
| Was the contractor responsible for designing and delivering robust, relevant curriculum and assessments tailored to each specific language and proficiency level based on Government requirements and guidelines IAW the PWS Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor provide these services IAW the PWS? |
| 24 |
| Did contractor provide instruction for at least 50 different languages Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor provide language instruction? |
| 25 |
| Did the contractor provide instruction for at least 1,000 students per year___Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor instruction for the students? |
Explanations/Remarks:__________________________________________________________________
WHEN FILLED IN, THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION
SENSITIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .