Attachment_I_Past_Performance___Experience_Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 727 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HAFC LONG FILM Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P2122R0035
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for the solicitation of a museum interpretive exhibit fabrication indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract. The National Park Service requires past performance questionnaires to be completed by offerors and references as part of the source selection process. The questionnaire includes a performance rating form addressing elements such as technical performance, understanding of requirements, timeliness, cost control, and customer satisfaction. Respondents are asked to provide ratings of outstanding, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory for each element and indicate if they would do business with the contractor again. A supplemental comment form allows for additional feedback. Offerors must compile and submit completed questionnaires with their proposals, though the government may verify the information directly with references.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140P2122R0035_Amd_0002.pdf | ||
| A04_-_LONG_SOW_2022_8_5_22_v2_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P2122R0035_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_D_LONG_AV_Completion_Report.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_B_NPS_Materials_Release_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_L_Certification_of_Vaccination_Form_expires_2-28-25.pdf | ||
| Attachment_H_LONG_Film_Cost_Estimate_Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_F_Two_Dimensional_Graphic_Standards_2022_04_13.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_E_LONG_Foundation_Document_2017.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P2122R0035.pdf | ||
| Attachment_K_Vaccination_Certification_Notification_Template.pdf | ||
| Attachment_J_Memo_from_SPE_regarding_notifying_contractors_about_COVID_vaccination_certification.pdf | ||
| Attachment_G_Interview_Cinematography_Standards.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_C_NPS_Amendment_to_License_Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_A_NPS_Release_Form.pdf |
Show all 15
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
Solicitation 140P2122R0035 – Attachment H
Past Performance Questionnaire
The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for Museum Interpretive Exhibit Fabrication Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.
Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.
Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.
Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.
Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.
Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED
CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT TYPE
CONTRACTING OFFICER/CUSTOMER NAME,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)
NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND
EMAIL ADDRESS
DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED/
SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR
Performance Element Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Other
Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)
2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
Timeliness of Performance
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)
4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
(For 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
5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)
6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)
7. COMMUNICATION
(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)
Cost Control
8. COST CONTROL
(For 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?)
FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate YES NO
9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
Additional Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .