Attachment J.1 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rigging Boards Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 2031ZA25Q00029
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for solicitation #2031ZA25Q00029 from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) for Rigging Boards. The questionnaire requires offerors to obtain feedback from at least two assessors who have received rigging boards from them within the past 5 years, with relevance defined as similar in size, scope, and complexity to BEP's requirements.
The questionnaire must be completed by the assessors (not the offerors) and submitted to the contracting office by 5:30 PM ET on February 5, 2025. It evaluates contractors across multiple performance areas including customer satisfaction, schedule performance, management performance, quality, and cost using a rating scale from Unsatisfactory to Exceptional. The template includes sections for contract information, assessor details, and an overall recommendation on whether the assessor would award another contract to the contractor.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF30 - Amendment A0001 2031ZA25Q00029 - Rigging Boards Draft.pdf | ||
| 2031ZA25Q00029.pdf |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions:
· The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) requests recent past performance. Recent is defined as within the last 5 years.
· Offeror shall send the questionnaire to at least two (2) Assessors (personnel or organization) for which rigging boards were provided. It must be relevant to BEP’s requirement. Relevant is defined as similar in size, scope, and complexity to the BEP’s requirement identified in the Rigging Board Specification.
· Offeror shall complete Section II prior to submitting the questionnaire to Assessor(s).
· The Assessor(s) shall validate/confirm Section II information and complete Sections III and V.
The Assessor(s), NOT THE OFFEROR, shall email the completed questionnaire to the contracting office point of contact no later than the date and time indicated below.
Message to the Assessor: Your assistance is requested by the BEP to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below. Please validate/confirm Section II information, complete Sections III and V, and sign the questionnaire. Completed questionnaire shall be emailed to Jacqueline.Ambala@bep.gov and Susan.DelaCruz@bep.gov by no later than 5:30 PM Eastern Time (ET), February 5, 2025.
I. Solicitation Data (for the proposed effort)
| Solicitation Number |
| 2031ZA25Q00029 |
| Project/Requirement |
| Rigging Board |
II. Current or Historical Contract Information Assessor: The performance data submitted by the Offeror is |_| correct or |_| incorrect.
Name of Company Reference is for: _____________________________________________________
CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS:
Contract No
Type of Contract
| Initial |
| Final |
Contract Value
Period of Performance/Delivery Schedule
Project/Requirement Description
Please select from the following as it applies to this contract:
| Contracting Role |
| |_| PRIME |
| |_| SUBCONTRACTOR |
| Termination History |
| |_| Convenience |
| |_| Default |
| |_| N/A |
III. Assessor Information
Assessor Name
Title/Role
Phone Number/Email Address
IV. Evaluation Definitions
The following definitions should be used in your assessment of Contractor performance.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Contractor’s performance significantly exceeded most or all contract requirements. 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 were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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. |
| SATISFACTORY |
| Performance meets 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 problems(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) |
| Performance information not recent or relevant as defined in the Solicitation. Unable to provide assessment. |
V. Performance Evaluation
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unacceptable |
| N/A |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The referenced contractor was responsive to the customer’s needs.
The contractor’s personnel were qualified to meet the requirements.
SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
The contractor’s ability to ensure, to the extent of its responsibility, that all tasks were completed within the requested time frame.
Time required for vendor to respond to emergencies and service requests.
Timeliness in Meeting Milestones and deliverables (if applicable)
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE/PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The contractor had a clear understanding of the tasks detailed in the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement
The contractor’s ability to complete tasks correctly the first time.
The contractor’s ability to resolve problems.
Did the contractor successfully manage its subcontractors?
Was the contractor’s management effective in controlling cost, schedule and performance requirements?
QUALITY
What is your OVERALL assessment of the quality of the contractor’s performance? Were your specifications and expectations met by the contractor?
Quality of the finished product; please note any specific issues.
Conformance to Contract Requirements
Standards of Good Workmanship (technical, professional, environmental, safety, etc.)
COST
The contractor’s ability to accurately estimate cost.
COST/PRICE ESTIMATES— (ability to meet proposed costs and whether actual costs/rates realized reflect negotiated costs/rates)
INVOICING—accuracy and timeliness of submission
Based on this Contractor’s overall performance, would you award this Contractor another contract?
Yes________ No___________ If no, please explain:
General Comments:
| _________________________________ | ____________________ | |
| Assessor’s Signature | Date |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .