B08_Attach_12_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 147 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DOI Uniform IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P2122R0009
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and instructions for a solicitation seeking a Department of Interior Uniform Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract. The National Park Service is soliciting proposals for an IDIQ contract to provide unspecified services. Offerors must include completed past performance questionnaires from references as part of their proposals using the provided forms, which include a performance rating form and supplemental comment form. The rating form includes questions regarding technical performance, timeliness, quality control, cost control, and whether the reference would do business with the contractor again. Offerors will be evaluated based on relevancy and recency of their past performance. The solicitation number is 140P2122R0009.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 29
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
Solicitation 140P2122R0009
Past Performance Questionnaire
The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for a DOI Uniform 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 submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION
Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has little or no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
Performance Rating Form
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
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 .