Attachment II - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 951700-26-R-0008
- Issued by
-
US Agency for Global Media
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire attachment for a federal janitorial services solicitation. The document serves as an evaluation tool for assessing offeror qualifications and experience in providing similar services. It is designed to be completed by contractors bidding on the USAGM Janitorial Service contract for the Kuwait Transmitting Station under solicitation number 951700-26-R-0008.
The questionnaire functions as an appendix to the main solicitation and is used to gather documented evidence of contractor capability and historical performance on comparable janitorial and facility maintenance contracts. Offerors are expected to provide detailed information about their past projects, including project scope, duration, client references, performance metrics, and relevant experience with similar facility types or geographic locations. This past performance data will be evaluated as part of the overall proposal assessment process alongside technical capability and pricing factors for this FAR Part 13 commercial services procurement.
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-3)
| 1. Contractor Information | |
| Firm Name: | CAGE Code: |
| Address: | DUNs Number: |
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:
2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify): Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable): Explain Differences:
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 4-7)
4. Client Information Name: Title:
Phone Number: Email Address:
5. Describe the client’s role in the project:
6. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
7. Client’s Signature:
NOTE: USAGM REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USAGM WITH THEIR PROPOSAL. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USAGM. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USAGM POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
ATTACHMENT II – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
ADJECTIVE
RATINGS
AND
DEFINITIONS
TO
BE
USED
TO
BEST
REFLECT
YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO |
significant weaknesses identified.
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor |
were effective.
A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. |
There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not |
fully implemented.
A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an |
unsatisfactory rating.
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor |
negative.
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.
1. QUALITY:
| a) Quality of janitorial services, cleanliness standards, and attention to detail |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
2. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| a) Ability to complete work on time and adhere to schedules. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| a) Overall satisfaction of Government personnel/end users with cleanliness, hygiene, and service quality. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
4. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
| a) Effectiveness of supervision, staffing, and responsiveness to issues. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
5. COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
| a) Adherence to safety procedures, restricted areas, and site rules. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
6. RESPONSIVENESS AND PROBLEM RESOLUTION
| a) Ability to address complaints, deficiencies, and corrective actions. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
7. QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
| a) Use of appropriate cleaning materials and consumables (e.g., soap, tissue, chemicals). |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
8. OVERALL
| a) Overall contract performance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
9. GENERAL
| a) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
b) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)
Yes
No
| c) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):
image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png image6.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .