D. Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 26 KB Posted

Attached to
3650--763-26-2-228-0242 -Lancaster CMOP Low to Medium Volume TCA and Sorting Loops Project (VA-26-00039446)
Solicitation number
36C77026T0007
Issued by

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed for prime contractors to distribute to their reference contacts in support of proposals submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs for solicitation 36C77026R0007, which concerns Low to Medium Volume TCA and Sorting Loops for the Dallas (Lancaster) Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP).

The questionnaire collects detailed feedback from government agencies or companies that have previously contracted with the bidding contractor, evaluating performance across 21 criteria on a 0-5 scale (Neutral to Exceptional). Key evaluation areas include contractor management and staffing capabilities, technical performance for automated systems, system integration and installation execution, cybersecurity and data integrity management, problem identification and resolution, contract compliance, responsiveness to changes, and personnel consistency. Reference contacts must provide specific contract information including government agency or company name, contract number, dollar value, period of performance, location of services, and full-time equivalent employees provided. The questionnaire requires reference contacts to provide an overall performance rating and detailed remarks explaining notable strengths or weaknesses, particularly related to automation performance, schedule adherence, and system reliability. Completed forms must be returned to Kelley Cunningham at Kelley.Cunningham@va.gov. The template includes certification language requiring reference contacts to verify the accuracy of reported information.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
1 day snapshot.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
G. Dallas Manual Dispensing for New TCA.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
H. Dallas TCA Products 07132026.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
K. L034.00113-510A.pdf PDF
I. Dallas_CMOP_Floor Plan.pdf PDF
L. CHIP Programming job aid 1.pdf PDF
B. Attachment 1 for Dallas CMOP TCA Low to Medium Volume.docx DOCX document
A. PWS TCA System Installation_Final_updated 7.8.26.docx DOCX document
J. FlexLink Layout from KNAPP System.docx DOCX document
E. BOT2000.pdf PDF
RFP_36C77026R0007_extended.docx DOCX document
F. CAP1185CL-foil-lined- CAP1190CL-foam-lined.pdf PDF
C. BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT.pdf PDF
M. CHIP Program Deleting job aid 2.pdf PDF
S06_Amendment_36C77026R0007.docx DOCX document
S05_Questions and Clarifications_R0007.docx DOCX document
Show all 16

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Past Performance INSTRUCTIONS TO PRIME CONTRACTOR: (Contractor submitting proposal):

Complete the CONTRACTOR INFORMATION section. Save the document. Send an electronic or hard copy print of the form to each of your reference contacts, asking them to please complete the form and submit it according to the instructions, below.

Company Name

Street Address

Point of Contact

City

Point of Contact Phone Number

State

E-Mail Address

Zip Code

Solicitation Number
36C77026R0007
Description of Work
Low to Medium Volume TCA and Sorting Loops for Dallas (Lancaster) CMOP

INSTRUCTIONS TO REFERENCE CONTACT

Please complete the following pages as a past performance Reference Contract for the entity named above. Once completed, please return the form to: Kelley Cunningham, Kelley.Cunningham@va.gov.

RESPONDENT INFORMATION [completed by Reference Contact]

Government Agency or Company name

Street Address

POC Name

City

Phone Number

State

Fax Number

Zip Code

Email

Contract Number

Prime or Subcontractor

Dollar Value

Period of Performance

Description of services provided

Location of services provided

Number of FTEE YOUR FIRM provided

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the number on the scale of 0 (Neutral) to 5 (Exceptional) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE OVERALL RATING in the Remarks section, below (text box will expand to whatever extent is necessary).

0
1
2
3
4
5
NEUTRAL
UNSATISFACTORY
MARGINAL
SATISFACTORY
GOOD
EXCEPTIONAL
No record of past performance or the record is incon-clusive.
Performance did not meet most contractual require-ments. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.
Performance met most contractual requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some. There were a few minor problems, which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner.
Performance exceeded all contract requirements. There were no problems.
The Contractor …
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Provided experienced managers and/or supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2.
Demonstrated ability to hire, maintain, and replace, if necessary, sufficient qualified personnel throughout the contract period.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3.
Ability to fill staff vacancy in a timely manner.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
4.
Home office participated in solving significant local problems as necessary.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
5.
Had sufficient personnel to monitor, support and provide oversight for large numbers of staff at geographically dispersed locations.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
6.
Met technical performance requirements (throughput, accuracy, and reject rates) for automated systems.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
7.
Successfully integrated automation with existing host systems (e.g., pharmacy operating systems, databases, or similar enterprise systems) with minimal disruption.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
8.
Planned and executed phased installation and cutover without unacceptable impact to ongoing operations.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
9.
Effectively managed cybersecurity, data integrity, and audit‑trail requirements as part of system deployment and operation
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
10.
Corrected deficiencies in timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
11.
Provided timely resolution of contract discrepancies
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
12.
Identified problems as they occurred.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
13.
Suggested alternative approaches to problems.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
14.
Displayed initiative to solve problems.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
15.
Managed on-boarding and background investigation process efficiently and timely.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
16.
Was responsive to contract changes.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
17.
Maintained consistent staffing levels for positions in cases of call outs, illnesses, injuries, etc.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
18.
Cooperated with Company/ Government personnel after award.
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
19.
Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “remarks.”
|_|
YES
|_|
NO
20.
Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, please explain in “remarks.”
|_|
YES
|_|
NO
21.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING:
|_| 0
|_| 1
|_| 2
|_| 3
|_| 4
|_| 5

REMARKS (Please use as much space as is needed – the box will expand as you type. Please describe any notable strengths or weaknesses related to automation performance (throughput, reject rates, integration), schedule adherence, and system reliablility).

I hereby certify that the information that I have reported above is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Printed Name

E-mail address

Business Title

Signature

Date

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