Attachment J.2 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- LCFDL26R0007
- Issued by
-
Library of Congress
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed to evaluate contractor performance on the FEDLINK Books and Non-Print Materials and Related Support contract (LCFDL26R0007). The questionnaire serves as an assessment tool for the Government to evaluate the level of risk associated with an offeror's ability to successfully perform the required services. It is not a substantive document addressing specific contract requirements but rather a structured evaluation instrument to be completed by references or past clients.
The questionnaire contains nine performance evaluation areas, each with a dropdown selection and comments field: Quality Technical Performance (staff expertise and product/service quality), Project Approach and Contract Management Evaluation, Contract Compliance, Cost Control, Timeliness, Business Relations (both corporate-level and whether the client would select the firm again), and Overall Evaluation. Each performance area uses a standardized five-point rating scale (0–4) with defined criteria: Unsatisfactory (0), Marginal (1), Satisfactory (2), Very Good (3), and Outstanding (4). The ratings assess whether performance met contractual requirements, identified and resolved problems, and provided benefits to the Government. This template will be used by the Government as part of its best value tradeoff analysis for the multiple-award IDIQ contract with a 5-year base period.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LCFDL26R0007 Books and NonPrint Materials and Related Support Q and A 3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LCFDL26R0007 0003 3.9.26.pdf | ||
| LCFDL26R0007 Books and NonPrint Materials and Related Support Q and A 2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LCFDL26R0007 0002 3.9.26.pdf | ||
| LCFDL26R0007 Books and NonPrint Materials and Related Support Q and A 1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment J.3 - Pricing Pages Template Amendment 0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LCFDL26R0007 0001 2.24.26.pdf | ||
| Attachment J.4 - Firm Orders Form.pdf | ||
| LCFDL26R0007 2.5.26.pdf | ||
| Attachment J.1 - FEDLINK Monthly Cancellation and Deobligation Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment J.3 - Pricing Pages Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment J.5 - Lease Plan Form.pdf | ||
| Attachment J.6 - FEDLINK Quarterly Books Sales Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 13
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
FEDLINK Books and Non-Print Materials and Related Support Solicitation Number: LCFDL26R0007 Attachment J.2 – Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment J.2 – Past Performance Questionnaire
| Client Information |
| Contract & Contractor Information |
Name:
Contractor:
Title:
Contract Number:
Organization:
Total Contract Value:
Telephone:
Period of Performance:
Email:
Brief Description of Project:
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please select a rating or answer and include comments, if applicable. Please also reference the definitions of ratings below to help determine your selection. The Government will evaluate any past performance information submitted to assess the level of risk of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform services as required in the contract.
| Performance Area |
| Description/Question re: Performance Area |
| Selection/Rating |
| Comments |
| Quality |
| Technical Performance: How would you rate the technical expertise of the contractor’s staff? (Includes: Experience or knowledge in technical areas specific to tasks, ability to effectively communicate technical concepts) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Quality |
| Technical Performance: How would you rate the technical quality of the products produced and services provided? |
(Includes: Achievement of critical success factors, functionality, downtime, and appropriateness of solution)
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Quality |
| Project Approach and Contract Management Evaluation: How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s project management? |
(Includes: Effectiveness in responding to critical problems and issues, completeness and quality of problem identification, adequacy of corrective action plans, effectiveness of project overview and review)
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Quality |
| Contract Compliance: How would you rate the contractor’s compliance with contract terms related to deliverables/services? |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Cost Control |
| How would you rate the contractor’s cost control for the project? (Includes: Ability to deliver products/services at the price agreed to in the contract) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Timeliness |
| How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness in delivering products and/or services? (Includes: ability to meet contract milestones and other contract schedules) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Business Relations |
| How would you rate your business relations with the contractor at the corporate level? (Includes: Working relationship between the contractor and contract administration team; User satisfaction; Professional behavior with all parties; Effective corporate points of contact; Initiative in meeting and anticipating Customer needs.) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
| Business Relations |
| If given the opportunity, would you select the firm again? |
| ☐ Yes |
☐ No Comments:
| Overall Evaluation |
| Provide your overall assessment of the contractor. |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
DEFINITIONS OF RATINGS
To summarize contractor performance for each of the rating questions, assign each question one of the following ratings:
| Rating No. |
| Rating |
| Definition |
| 0 |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| 1 |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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. |
| 2 |
| 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. |
| 3 |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| 4 |
| Outstanding |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .