Attachment D - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 15F06722R0000005
About this file
This document is a past performance questionnaire for a federal solicitation seeking social media exploitation software licenses. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is requesting 5,000 COTS licenses for a software that provides social media exploitation capabilities. Respondents to the solicitation should be prepared to provide past performance references that will be sent this questionnaire to evaluate the offeror's performance on previous relevant contracts. The questionnaire collects information on the offeror and reference contract, and assesses the offeror's performance across areas such as program management, technical performance, timeliness, quality and customer satisfaction, cost control, and an overall rating.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
Past Performance Questionnaire Background This questionnaire will be used to provide information to support the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Tactical Social Media Exploitation (SOMEX) procurement, RFP 15F06722R0000005.
Message to the Assessor Your feedback is requested by the FBI to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor identified below. To expedite receipt of the requested information, the FBI requests that you e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) as a PDF to: SMcMan@fbi.gov. Your support and participation in this matter is essential and greatly appreciated!
Instructions for Offeror and Assessor
· Sections I and II to be completed by the Offeror and provided to the Assessor (the Government / Commercial personnel that had experience with the Offeror on a previous relevant contract). The Assessor shall in turn, verify Sections I and II, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Officer at the email listed above.
· If any information in Section II is incorrect, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Sections III through VI to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.
I. Customer Identification Customer or Agency Name
Customer or Agency Description
Geographic Description of Services Under This Contract (i.e., single location, multiple locations, CONUS (in U.S.), or OCONUS (Outside U.S.)
II. Current or Historical Contract Identification Contractor Name/Address
Contract Number:
Email:
Contract Type:
Initial Period of Performance:
Current/Final Period of Performance:
Initial Contract Value (base only):
Current/final Contract Value (base and exercised options only):
Reason if Initial Contract Value and Current/final Contract Value above are different.
Brief description of services provided
Contractor Role (Prime or Subcontractor)
ASSESSOR
The inform submitted by the company above is: CORRECT ☐ OR INCORRECT ☐
III. Assessor Information Assessor Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address
Role (examples: PM/PCO/ACO/Contract Specialist/COR/Quality Assurance Specialist, etc.)
Assessor’s number of years working on contract
IV. Assessment Definitions The following definitions should be used in your assessment of the Contractor performance.
| RATING |
| RATING DEFINITION |
| EXCEPTIONAL (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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. |
| VERY GOOD (VG) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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. |
| SATISFACTORY (S) |
| Performance meets 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 (M) |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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 (U) |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| NOT APPLICABLE (N) |
| No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment. |
V. Performance Evaluation
| Program Management |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
(Example: Was the Contractor effective in integrating and coordinating all activities required to execute the contract? Did the Contractor appropriately assign responsibilities to its workforce?)
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS
(Example: Did Contractor management provide timely, complete, and quality problem identification? Did Contractor management provide effective business relations?)
MANAGEMENT OF PERSONNEL
(Example: Did the Contractor show an ability to select, retain, support, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise necessary to accomplish the Government’s requirement within schedule and budget?)
| Technical Performance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
(Example: Were the provided services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? Did the provided services meet requirements and accommodate changing requirements?)
UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(Example: Did the Contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? If applicable, did the Contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies, and other inaccuracies in technical direction?)
| Timeliness of Performance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
(Example: Was the Contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections / changes in a timely manner?)
| Quality / Customer Satisfaction |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE / CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
(Example: Was the Contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction?)
COMMUNICATION
(Example: Did the Contractor work and communicate well with Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, other contractors, subcontractors, and Government staff?)
| Cost Control |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
COST CONTROL
(Example: Was the Contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections / changes in a cost - effective manner?)
| Overall Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Overall rating of Contractor’s Performance on contract being assessed.
VI. General Comments
Assessor’s Signature Date
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .