Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rosebud Commission Adiabatic Humidification Systems Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 75H70122Q00024
About this file
This document includes an attachment for a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract opportunity for an adiabatic humidification system project. The opportunity is a firm fixed price construction contract between $100,000 to $250,000 issued by the Indian Health Service to provide commissioning, testing, and operation of humidification systems for 5 air handlers at a location in Todd County, South Dakota. Interested vendors are required to submit quotes in PDF format by July 7, 2022. Award will be made based on the lowest priced quote that meets the terms and conditions of the request for quotes. The project is set aside for small businesses and has a performance period of 180 days from notice to proceed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 3 IHS IEE Representation Form.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 Technical Experience Offeror Worksheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 SOW.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7 WH347 PAYROLL.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 Self Performed Calculation Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 SD20220018.pdf | ||
| Attachment 8 Release of Claims.pdf | ||
| B01 75H70122Q00024.pdf |
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
ATTACHMENT 6 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete)
Project Title
Award Value
Period of Performance
| Prime Contractor or Subcontractor |
| ☐ Prime ☐ Subcontractor |
Agency or Entity Name and Address
PART II PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (Client to complete)
Name / Title
Phone #
Email Address
Part I Contract Type
Signature
Instructions: Please select the adjective rating that best reflects your evaluation of the contractor’s performance. See Part III for rating guidance.
| Category |
| Exceptional |
| Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Quality
Schedule
Cost Control
Management
Small Business
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Regulatory Compliance | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Comments (expand as needed) |
PART III RATING GUIDANCE
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. 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 was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| (G) Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. 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. |
| A Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum 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. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does 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. |
| A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor negative. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .