ATTACHMENT G - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.docx
DOCX document 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 6515--NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C10G24R0028
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire related to a federal contract opportunity for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to purchase a Draeger brand name or equal Surgical Lighting System. The Questionnaire requests information from references on the offeror's past performance in areas such as quality of service, cost control, timeliness, and business relations. The associated federal contract opportunity is a combined synopsis/solicitation for the Draeger brand name or equal Surgical Lighting System, with a base period of 12 months and four 12-month option periods. The solicitation lists detailed salient characteristics and technical requirements for the lighting system, including features such as adjustable light field, LED lamp life, color rendering index, and sterile hand controls. Proposals are due by 11:59 PM EST on April 22, 2024, and the VA will evaluate offers based on the criteria outlined in the solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C10G24R0028 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT E - REPORTING TOOL - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT F - PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT C - CONTRACT CLAUSES - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C10G24R0028.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT A - PRICE COST SCHEDULE - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT B - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION - NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM.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
36C10G24R0028
Attachment G Past Performance Questionnaire
SOLICITATION NO.: 36C10G24R0028
DESCRIPTION: NX EQ SURGICAL LIGHTING SYSTEM – Draeger Brand Name or Equal
Offerors: Please Send to Each Reference Cited in Submitted Proposal (Maximum of Five References from Past Three Years)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
STRATEGIC ACQUISITION CENTER (SAC)
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
TO: Valerie Bennett E-MAIL: Valerie.Bennett1@va.gov
VA SAC is currently in the process of awarding a contract for the solicitation described above. The offeror identified below has provided your organization’s name as a reference under the contract described below:
Offeror Name:
(Insert Offeror’s Name Here)
| Contract Number: |
| (Insert Applicable Contract Number Here) |
Please rate the offeror in each of the categories on this questionnaire. See “Rating Guidelines” section for detailed description of categories and ratings. There is room for comments where you deem remarks would be helpful to our evaluation (see ‘Comment from Reference’ under “Offeror Evaluation.” Please note that the past performance evaluators for this solicitation may contact you for further details in making a fair assessment of this offeror’s past performance. Thank you for your organization’s assistance in fairly evaluating offeror proposals for this solicitation.
Please E-mail Questionnaire to Valerie.Bennett1@va.gov by April 22, 2024, at 11:59 PM EST.
| Name of Reference: |
| (Reference Complete These Sections) |
Title of Reference:
Phone Number:
E-Mail Address:
Name of Organization:
Contract Period of Performance (Month/Day/Year Begin and End):
Total Contract Value (Base and All Option Years):
Options Exercised on Contract (Yes/No)?
Brief Description of Services/Commodity Provided by Offeror:
Show Cause Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?
Stop Work Order Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?
Termination for Convenience, Cause, or Default Issued on Contract (Yes/No)?
Rating Guidelines:
| Rating |
| Quality of Service |
| Cost Control |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Business Relations |
| 1: Unsatisfactory |
| Offeror is not in compliance and has jeopardized achievement of contract objectives |
| Offeror is unable to manage costs effectively |
| Offeror delays have jeopardized performance |
| Responses to inquiries and issues are not effective |
| 2: Satisfactory |
| Minor inefficiencies and errors have been identified |
| Offeror is usually effective in managing costs |
| Offeror is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Responses to inquiries and issues is usually effective |
| 3: Excellent |
| Offeror is in compliance with contract requirements and delivers quality services |
| Offeror is effective in managing costs and submits proper invoices |
| Offeror is effective in meeting and exceeding milestones and delivery schedule |
| Responses to inquiries have been effective and/or exceeded expectations and established deadlines |
Offeror Evaluation:
| Rating (List Number Based on Rating Guidelines Above) |
| Category |
| Description |
| Quality of Service |
| In compliance with contract requirements, submits accurate reports/deliverables, has effective personnel, and has achieved/maintained technical excellence: |
Comment from Reference: _______________________
| Cost Control |
| Has achieved efficiencies in costs, managed costs effectively, and has submitted timely/accurate invoices with supporting documentation: |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Has met milestones, is reliable, is responsive to technical direction, and has completed milestones on-time or ahead of schedule: |
| Business Relations |
| Has maintained effective management of contract, has exhibited reasonable/cooperative behavior, is responsive to contract requirements, is responsive to inquiries/issues, and is proactive about resolving problems: |
| |_| YES |_| NO |
| Overall Satisfaction |
| Would you (reference) choose to work with this offeror again? |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .