ATTACHMENT G - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - NX EQ PHYSIOLOGY MOTILITY ANALYZERS 02.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X26R0054
About this file
This file is a Past Performance Questionnaire template used by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Enterprise Procurement Office (EPO) to evaluate offerors' performance history for solicitation 36C10X26R0054 regarding NX EQ Physiologic Motility Analyzers (EndoFLIP brand name only).
The questionnaire requests that offerors submit up to five references from the past three years to be evaluated by the VA. References are instructed to complete the form and return it to Jalima Jones and Sara Vickroy via email (Jalima.Jones@va.gov and Anthony.Zibolski@va.gov) by October 6, 2026, at 10:00 AM EST. The template requires references to provide organizational information, contract details including period of performance and total contract value, and to rate the offeror across four evaluation categories: Quality of Service, Cost Control, Timeliness of Performance, and Business Relations. Each category uses a three-point rating scale (1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Satisfactory, 3=Excellent) with specific criteria defining each rating level. References must also note whether options were exercised, show cause orders issued, stop work orders issued, or terminations occurred during contract performance, and provide an overall satisfaction assessment indicating whether they would work with the offeror again. The questionnaire includes space for references to provide detailed comments supporting their ratings in each category.
View the file
Other files
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
Attachment G Past Performance Questionnaire
SOLICITATION NO.: 36C10X26R0054
DESCRIPTION: NX EQ PHYSIOLOGIC MOTILITY ANALYZERS– Brand Name Only EndoFLIP™
Offerors: Please Send Each Reference Cited in Submitted Proposal (Maximum of Five References from Past Three Years)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT OFFICE (EPO)
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
TO: Jalima Jones and Sara Vickroy E-MAIL: Jalima.Jones@va.gov and Anthony.Zibolski@va.gov
VA EPO 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: Jalima.Jones@va.gov and Anthony.Zibolski@va.gov by October 06, 2026, at 10:00 AM 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? |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: |
| 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? |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: |
| 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 .