Attachment_J.9_Revised_Past_Performance_Evaluations_Commissioning.pdf
PDF 124 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Third-Party Commissioning Services State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A
- Issued by
- District of Columbia, District of Columbia
About this file
This is a Past Performance Evaluation Form for Third-Party Commissioning Services issued by the District of Columbia Department of General Services (DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A). The form is designed to assess contractor performance across five key performance elements: Quality of Services/Work, Timeliness of Performance, Cost Control, Business Relations, and Customer Satisfaction. Evaluators rate contractors on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Excellent), with an additional "++" (Plus) designation option. The evaluation form captures essential contract information including the evaluator's name, title, contact details, organization name, services provided description, contract number, contract amount, and contract dates. The form includes dedicated sections for detailed remarks on both excellent and unacceptable performance, with guidance to attach additional documentation as necessary.
The rating guidelines provide specific criteria for each performance category to ensure consistent evaluation standards. Quality of Services is assessed based on compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports, appropriateness of personnel, and technical excellence. Timeliness evaluates whether interim milestones are met and work is completed on schedule without liquidated damages. Cost Control examines budget adherence, billing accuracy, and cost efficiencies. Business Relations assesses responsiveness to technical directions, effective management, businesslike correspondence, and flexibility in addressing contractor problems. Customer Satisfaction measures responsiveness to inquiries and administrative issues. The evaluation framework distinguishes between ratings, with Acceptable performance representing no impact on contract requirements, Good indicating no quality, cost, or schedule issues with effective responses, and Excellent denoting exceptional performance levels. This standardized form enables the District to document and evaluate contractor past performance history for future procurement decisions under the Third-Party Commissioning Services RFP.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
Attachment J.9
DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A
THIRD-PARTY COMMISSIONING SERVICES
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
(Check appropriate box)
OFFEROR
Performance Elements
Excellent*
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Unacceptable*
Quality of Services/ Work
Timeliness of Performance
Cost Control
Business Relations
Customer Satisfaction
*Please attach Remarks
1. Name and Title of Evaluator:
2. Evaluator Phone: Evaluator Email:
3. Signature of Evaluator:
4. Name of Organization:
5. Describe Services Provided:
6. Contract Number: Contract Amount
Contract Start Date: Contract Finish Date:
7. Remarks on Excellent Performance (attach additional sheet if necessary)
8. Remarks on Unacceptable Performance (attach additional sheet if necessary)
P
Attachment J.9 Page 2 of 2
RATING GUIDELINES
Summarize Contractor performance in each of the rating areas. Assign each area a rating of 0 (Unacceptable), 1 (Poor), 2 (Acceptable), 3 (Good), 4(Excellent), or ++ (Plus). Use the following instructions for guidance in making these evaluations.
Quality Timeless Business
Product/Service Cost Control of Performance Relations
-Compliance with contract requirements
-Accuracy of reports -Appropriateness of personnel
-Technical excellence
-Within budget (over/ under target costs)
-Current, accurate, and complete billings
-Relationship of negated costs to actual
-Cost efficiencies
-Meet Interim milestones -Reliable -Responsive to technical directions -Completed on time, including wrap-up and -contract administration
-Effective management -Businesslike correspondence -Responsive to contract requirements -Prompt notification of contract problems -Reasonable/cooperative
-Change order issue -No liquidated damages assessed
-Flexible -Pro-active -effective contractor recommended solutions -Effective snail/small disadvantaged business Subcontracting program
0. Zero Nonconformances are comprises the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of
Cost issues are comprising performance of contract requirements.
Delays are comprising the achievement of contract requirements, Despite use
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/administrative issues is not effective and responsive.
Agency resources of Agency resources.
1. Unacceptable Nonconformances require major Cost issues require major Delays require major response to inquiries, technical/
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
service/administrative issues is marginally effective and responsive.
2. Poor Nonconformances require minor
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Costs issues require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Responses to inquiries, technical/ somewhat effective and requirements. requirements. requirements. responsive.
3. Acceptable Nonconformances do not impact Cost issues do not impact Delays do not impact Responses to inquires, technical/ achievement of contract requirements.
4. Good There are no quality problems. There are no cost issues. There are not delays. Responses to inquiries, technical/ effective and responsive,
5. Excellent The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in some or all of the above categories.
achievement of contract requirements.
achievement of contract requirements.
usually effective and responsive.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .