Attachment E - Past Performace Questionaires.docx
DOCX document 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Purchase and installation of a new Intrusion Detection System for Phillip Burton Federal Courthouse
- Solicitation number
- 70RFPW26QW9000006
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity involving the installation of an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) hardware at the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The solicitation (70RFPW26QW9000006) is being conducted by the Federal Protective Service (FPS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and is structured as a 100% small business set-aside with a firm-fixed price contract. The questionnaire is designed to gather detailed feedback from previous clients about a contractor's performance across multiple evaluation criteria, including professionalism, customer service, problem resolution, project management, and overall service quality.
The solicitation targets NAICS code 561621 with a $25 million size standard, and requires contractors to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). The procurement will be conducted under FAR Subpart 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures, with award based on price and other factors. The specific period of performance for the IDS hardware installation will be detailed in the solicitation. Potential contractors are instructed to submit any questions in writing to Contract Specialist Gilbert Olivas at gilbert.olivas@fps.dhs.gov, with the completed past performance questionnaire to be emailed to the same address.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 70RFPW26QW9000006 A0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment D - Past Performance Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFQ 70RFPW26QW9000006.pdf | ||
| Attachment F - Contractor Quotation Checklist.docx | DOCX document |
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
Federal Protective Service Western Consolidated Contracting Group 1102 15th St. SW, Suite 105 Auburn, WA 98001
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Solicitation: 70RFPW26QW9000006
NAME OF CONTRACTOR REQUESTING THE REFERENCE:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information regarding the quality of the above named Contractor’s past performance relative to a contract, completed or in progress, at your company/agency. The Federal Protective Service is considering this Contractor for the installation of Intrusion Detection System (IDS) hardware for Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse 450 Golden gate San Francisco, CA 94102 (Bldg. CA0154). We would greatly appreciate your input regarding the quality of the Contractor’s past performance.
Handwritten or typed responses are sufficient. It is requested that the individual(s) responsible for the administrative oversight of the project (e.g. security specialist, COR, COTR, etc.) respond to this questionnaire. More than one copy of the questionnaire may be submitted if responses from more than one individual are appropriate.
Upon completion of the survey, PLEASE EMAIL to Gilbert Olivas at gilbert.olivas@fps.dhs.gov you have any questions, please submit in writing to this email address. We appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
CONTRACT NO. OR PROJECT TITLE: PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
TOTAL PROJECT VALUE (TO DATE): NAME:
TITLE: COMPANY: TELEPHONE: EMAIL:
ATTACHMENT E
March
Version
PERFORMANCE
QUESTIONS:
)Please provide a brief description of the scope of this project so that we may determine any similarities to this contract:
Please provide your comments on the Contractor’s performance in the following areas:
1. Discuss the Contractor’s overall level of professionalism and attentiveness. Comments:
2. ( 3.
Discuss the
Contractor’s quality control over the entirety of the installation.
How effective was the )Discuss the Contractor’s overall level of customer service and responsiveness. Comments:
3. Contractor in identifying and resolving problems—was the Contractor proactive or reactionary? Comments:
4. Discuss the Contractor’s ability to provide sufficient supervision/staffing to ensure effective and successful performance.
Comments:
5. How effectively does the Contractor respond to problems presented to them by owner and tenant representatives?
6. Discuss the Contractor’s overall management of the project. Comments:
7. Please describe any special, unique and/or complex requirements of the project, and how well the Contractor was able to handle those complex requirements.
8. If you had a choice, would you hire this Contractor again? Why or why not? Comments:
9. In summary, would you describe the quality of the Contractor's services and overall performance as:
| a. | Highly Acceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is substantially less than the level expected from a competent vendor. |
| b. | Acceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is no more than the level expected from a competent vendor. |
| c. | Unacceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is greater than the level normally expected from a competent vendor. |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .