ATTJ105 - PastPresent Performance Questionnaire.docx

ATTACHMENT J105 – Past / Present Performance Questionnaire

RFP 75D301-25-R-00088

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions: OFFEROR shall complete the PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Reference Information Table themselves for the attached questionnaire, identifying the name and other pertinent information for each of your three (3) selected business references. This table, including the name of the offeror, shall be filled out completely by the offeror BEFORE sending it to the customers to respond to the questions. This will ensure the accuracy of the information being provided.

Send the attached questionnaire to each of the customers with a cover letter that:

a) Authorizes the selected customers to discuss the offeror’s performance under the applicable contract with the contracting officer;

b) Requests the customer complete the questionnaire;

c) Instructs the customer to return the completed questionnaire to the Contracting Officer:

Ms. Serina Allingham, by email: xog9@cdc.gov Mr. Patrick Winders, by email: vxx6@cdc.gov

Submit a copy of the customer’s cover letter with your Volume II – Past Performance Proposal to ensure receipt of questionnaire responses.

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

RFP 75D301-25-R-00088

Name of Offeror:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Reference Information Table

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.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

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.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

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.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. 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.

No record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available

1. How would you rate the contractor’s compliance with the delivery schedule / performance milestones?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

2. How would you rate the contractor’s business practices (e.g. maintaining a positive working relationship, business ethics, timely and effectively resolution of any problems etc.)?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

3. How would you rate the contractor’s record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship/quality of the product or service?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

4. How would you rate the contractor’s overall compliance with the terms and conditions of your purchase order /contract?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

5. How would you rate the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

6. How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

U ☐ M ☐ G ☐ S ☐ VG ☐ E ☐ N ☐

7. Would you purchase services from this contractor again?

Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ YES ☐ NO

Please provide any additional comments applicable to the contractor’s past performance: Click or tap here to enter text.

EVALUATOR’S NAME (Signature): ___________________________________________

TITLE OF EVALUATOR:___________________________________________

PHONE NUMBER:________________________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS:_______________________________________________

DATE: _________________