B08 ATT 1 Past Performance Questionnaire.doc

DOC document 52 KB Posted

Attached to
NR-ARD - IMPROVE ION ANALYSIS RFP Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2121Q0009
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity with the National Park Service. The past performance questionnaire requests information on a contractor's previous work experience and performance on similar contracts. It asks for details of prior contracts including contract number, period of performance, value, type of services performed, and contact information for a reference. The questionnaire contains a rating form to evaluate the contractor's performance on elements such as technical performance, timeliness, quality, cost control, and whether the reference would hire the contractor again. Respondents are asked to provide ratings in categories such as outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. The related federal contract opportunity is for an IMPROVE ION ANALYSIS contract with the National Park Service to provide past performance information as an evaluation factor.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to NR-ARD - IMPROVE ION ANALYSIS RFP, newest first.
File Type Posted
Sol_140P2121Q0009_Amd_0002.pdf PDF
B09 140P2121Q0009 SynSol Amend 2_0002.docx DOCX document
Sol_140P2121Q0009_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
A04 SOW IMPROVE Ion Analysis 2021 _0001.docx DOCX document
B08 ATT 3 Pricing Sheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
B08 Combined Synopsis_Solicitation 031921.docx DOCX document
B08 ATT 2 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN TEMPLATE.doc DOC document

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

The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for an IMPROVE Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.

Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and sand ensuring that references submit completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall send completed past performance questionnaires directly to the Government. Submit to tim_wind@nps.gov with “140P2121Q0009 PPQ” in the subject line.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Part I – Contract/Effort Information

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED

CONTRACT NUMBER

CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE

CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)

NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS
DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED

Part I! - Performance Rating Form

Performance Element
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Other

Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH

(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

Quality / Customer Satisfaction

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7. COMMUNICATION

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost-effective manner?)

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate
YES
NO

9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

Additional Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .