ATTACHMENT C PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- G099--FY22: Employee Assistance Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C24822Q0823
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal solicitation seeking an Employee Assistance Program. The questionnaire is to be completed by a reference for offerors bidding on solicitation number 36C24822Q0823, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 8. It requests ratings on a scale of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, and marginal for the offeror's past performance in areas such as quality of EAP services, cost control, timeliness, ability to meet special needs, management of EAP counselors, and overall satisfaction. References are asked to provide narrative comments supporting each rating selection and return the completed questionnaire via email by May 17, 2022.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C24822Q0823 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT B CONTRACTOR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT A OVAHCS PRIOR YEAR STATISTICAL REPORT.pdf | ||
| 36C24822Q0823_1.docx | DOCX document |
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 C
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
RFQ 36C24822Q0823, Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Section I is to be completed by the offeror and provide to their reference with instructions to complete Section II through IV and submit to the Contracting Officer prior to the offer due date/local time at block 8 of the SF1449. Contractor shall submit a completed copy of section I with their quote.
SECTION I:
Contractor:
Contractor DUNS:
Contract Number:
Contract Title:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user)
INDEX
Section I – Contractor Section II – Ratings Section III – Additional Narrative Justification Section IV – Signature of Rater Section V – Return Instructions Section VI – Rating Definitions
| SECTION II-RATINGS |
| Select a Rating Category |
Contractor Performance; Please provide a supporting narrative with your selected rating.
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s EAP services provided?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control the original cost for the services procured?
Choose an item.
3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness in meeting the deliverables for the EAP. Examples; providing brochures, training and assessment plan for EAP?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited services or crisis support)?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate EAP counselors to meet the need of your agency?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
6. Were there ever an issue where an employee couldn’t reach the 1800 number assigned to your agency for EAP support?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
7. How would you rate the overall performance of the contractor’s services?
Supporting narrative:
Choose an item.
8. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?
Choose an item.
SECTION III – Additional Supporting Narrative, if required.
Include the number of the question above to which this supporting narrative applies.
SECTION IV – Signature of Rater
Rater Name:
Signature of rater: _______________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ Signature of rater is not required if sent via e-mail directly from rater.
SECTION V – Return Instructions
Return the completed questionnaire via e-mail to: rohan.mckenzie@va.gov . no later than 4:00PM, May 17, 2022, EASTERN STANDARD TIME (EST).
SECTION VI – Rating Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
Exceptional (E)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| To justify an “exceptional” rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
Very Good
(VG)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| To justify a “very good” rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
Satisfactory (S)
| Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be or were satisfactory. |
| To justify a “satisfactory” rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than “satisfactory” solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
Marginal (M)
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A “marginal” rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .