Attachment H - Past Performance Signable Form.pdf
PDF 220 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Doc2075995037
- Issued by
- North Carolina
About this file
This is a Business Reference Response Form for Past Performance Questionnaire issued by the State of North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Health Benefits, for RFP Number 30-2026-017-DHB regarding a Provider Data Management/Credentialing Verification Organization (PDM/CVO) solution. The form requests vendor references to provide objective assessments of contractor performance on similar projects. The reference responses are due by the proposal deadline of August 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. EST, with system demonstrations estimated for January 5, 2027, and contract award anticipated by June 1, 2027. The initial contract term is five years with two optional one-year renewal periods.
The form evaluates contractor performance across five primary categories: Technical/Business Expertise, Quality of Services, and Schedule and Cost. Within these categories, respondents rate performance using a five-point scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or Not Applicable) and provide supporting documentation. Specific evaluation criteria include contractor understanding of Provider Enrollment and PDM/CVO solutions, appropriateness of staffing and training, successful deployment to State Medicaid programs, solution effectiveness, compliance with proposed specifications, quality control plan implementation, timely deficiency correction, on-time service delivery, cost performance against estimates, accurate and timely invoicing, and demonstrated cost efficiencies. The form also requires respondents to indicate whether they would award another contract to the vendor and whether they have observed any financial problems with the contractor.
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
Business Reference Response to Past Performance Questionnaire For:
State of North Carolina Request for Proposal (RFP) Number: 30-2026-017-DHB
Provider Data Management Credentialing Verification Organization (PDM/CVO)
PART A: Name of Vendor Submitting Proposal
NAME OF VENDOR:
PART B: Company / Respondent Providing Reference
NAME OF COMPANY / AGENCY:
RESPONDENT ADDRESS: CITY, STATE & ZIP: RESPONDENT TELEPHONE NUMBER:
RESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
RESPONDENT NAME AND TITLE:
PART C: Contract Information
PROGRAM TITLE:
BRIEF PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND WORK PERFORMED:
CONTRACT TYPE (TIME AND MATERIAL, FIXED PRICE, COST): CURRENT PROGAM PHASE (DESIGN, OPERATIONS):
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (INCLUDING ALL OPTIONS): CONTRACT DOLLAR VALUE (INCLUDING ALL OPTIONS):
CONTRACTORS ROLE (PRIME OR SUB): WAS THIS A COMPETITIVELY AWARDED CONTRACT (YES / NO):
PART D: Performance Information
In the tables that follow, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate code to the right of each question. Refer to the Rating Descriptions above. Provide supporting information and comments for each response in the space provided. Attach additional pages if more space is needed.
TECHNICAL / BUSINESS EXPERTISE
TE1: Contractor understood the Provider Enrollment or PDM/CVO Solution and provided the technical expertise required to meet contract performance.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
TE2: Contractor provided staff with appropriate technical skills and training commensurate with those required for successful project completion.
TE3: Contractor deployed a Provider Enrollment or PDM/CVO Solution to a State Medicaid program.
TE4: Contractor provided an effective solution for the Provider Enrollment or PDM/CVO Solution.
TE5: Contractor solution that was deployed did not substantially deviate from solution that was proposed.
Code Rating Descriptions
E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Agency’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Agency’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
QUALITY OF SERVICES
QS1. Contractor provided and followed effective quality control plan to meet program objectives.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
QS2. Contractor corrected deficiencies in a timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
SCHEDULE AND COST
SC1. Contractor delivered services within the required time period specified by contract requirements.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
SC2. Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price and actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
SC3. Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
SC4. Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: E V S M U N/A
N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.
PART E: General Comments and Signature PLEASE PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE, AS DESIRED.
Based on what you know today about the Contractor’s ability to execute what they promised in their proposal, would you award another contract to the Contractor, if given the choice? Yes or No. Please explain in the area below.
Have there been any indications that the Contractor has had any financial problems? Yes or No. Please explain in the area below.
RESPONDENT SIGNATURE: Please provide your signature confirming the information you have provided is an objective assessment of the Contractor’s past performance.
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
| NAME OF VENDOR: |
| NAME OF COMPANY AGENCY: |
| RESPONDENT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP: |
| RESPONDENT TELEPHONE NUMBER: |
| RESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
| RESPONDENT NAME AND TITLE: |
| PROGRAM TITLE: |
| BRIEF PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND WORK PERFORMED: |
| CONTRACT TYPE TIME AND MATERIAL FIXED PRICE COST: |
| CURRENT PROGAM PHASE DESIGN OPERATIONS: |
| PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE INCLUDING ALL OPTIONS: |
| CONTRACT DOLLAR VALUE INCLUDING ALL OPTIONS: |
| CONTRACTORS ROLE PRIME OR SUB: |
| WAS THIS A COMPETITIVELY AWARDED CONTRACT YES NO: |
| PART D Performance Information: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_2: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_3: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_4: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_5: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_6: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_7: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_8: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_9: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_10: |
| ESUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| VSUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| SSUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| MSUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| USUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| NASUPPORTING INFORMATION_11: |
| Insert Supporting Information: |
| Insert Response: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .