D - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Video Surveillance System Installation for Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA
- Solicitation number
- 70RFPW24QW9000003
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity related to the installation of a Video Surveillance System (VSS) at the Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information about the quality of a contractor's past performance on a similar project. The questionnaire asks the respondent to provide comments on the contractor's professionalism, customer service, problem-solving, supervision, project management, and overall performance. The respondent is asked to rate the contractor's performance as Highly Acceptable, Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The related federal contract opportunity is a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the VSS installation, which is being solicited as a 100% small business set-aside. The contract will be awarded on a best value trade-off basis, and the period of performance for the installation is no later than 60 business days after the receipt of the Notice to Proceed.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| REVISION 2 Instructions to Offerors via AM3.docx | DOCX document | |
| REVISION 2 Attachment E - Contractor Quotation Checklist via AM3.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70RFPW24QW9000003 - AM3.pdf | ||
| REVISED Instructions to Offerors via AM2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70RFPW24QW9000003 - AM2.pdf | ||
| REVISED Attachment A - SOW via AM2 70RFPW24QW9000003.docx | DOCX document | |
| REVISED Attachment E - Contractor Quotation Checklist via AM2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70RFPW24QW9000003 - AM1.pdf | ||
| REVISED Attachment A1 via AM1 on 240422.pdf | ||
| V2 - Synopsis.docx | DOCX document | |
| 70RFPW24QW9000003 - Solicitation.pdf | ||
| C - Past Performance Form.pdf | ||
| E - Contractor Quotation Checklist.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Federal Protective Service Western Consolidated Contracting Group 400 15th St. SW Auburn, WA 98001
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Solicitation: 70RFPW24QW9000003
NAME OF CONTRACTOR REQUESTING THE REFERENCE:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information regarding the quality of the above named Contractor’s past performance relative to a contract, completed or in progress, at your company/agency. The Federal Protective Service is considering this Contractor for the installation of a Video Surveillance System (VSS) in Fresno, CA. We would greatly appreciate your input regarding the quality of the Contractor’s past performance.
Handwritten or typed responses are sufficient. It is requested that the individual(s) responsible for the administrative oversight of the project (e.g. security specialist, COR, COTR, etc.) respond to this questionnaire. More than one copy of the questionnaire may be submitted if responses from more than one individual are appropriate.
Upon completion of the survey, PLEASE EMAIL to Rachel Kalac at Rachel.D.Kalac@fps.dhs.gov. If you have any questions, please submit in writing to both addresses listed. We appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
CONTRACT NO. OR PROJECT TITLE: PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
TOTAL PROJECT VALUE (TO DATE): NAME:
TITLE: COMPANY: TELEPHONE: EMAIL:
ATTACHMENT
D
March
Version
PERFORMANCE
QUESTIONS:
)Please provide a brief description of the scope of this project so that we may determine any similarities to this contract:
Please provide your comments on the Contractor’s performance in the following areas:
1. Discuss the Contractor’s overall level of professionalism and attentiveness. Comments:
2. ( 3.
Discuss the
Contractor’s quality control over the entirety of the installation.
How effective was the )Discuss the Contractor’s overall level of customer service and responsiveness. Comments:
3. Contractor in identifying and resolving problems—was the Contractor proactive or reactionary? Comments:
4. Discuss the Contractor’s ability to provide sufficient supervision/staffing to ensure effective and successful performance.
Comments:
5. How effectively does the Contractor respond to problems presented to them by owner and tenant representatives?
6. Discuss the Contractor’s overall management of the project. Comments:
7. Please describe any special, unique and/or complex requirements of the project, and how well the Contractor was able to handle those complex requirements.
8. If you had a choice, would you hire this Contractor again? Why or why not? Comments:
9. In summary, would you describe the quality of the Contractor's services and overall performance as:
| a. | Highly Acceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is substantially less than the level expected from a competent vendor. |
| b. | Acceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is no more than the level expected from a competent vendor. |
| c. | Unacceptable – Based on the contractor’s performance under this project, the level of risk associated with this vendor is greater than the level normally expected from a competent vendor. |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .