iTRAK Attachment H-Past Peformance Revised 11-23-2011.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DACS12P2108
About this file
Revised Attachment H-Past Performnce Questionnaire to update due date.
View the file
Other files
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
Text version
National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230
Attachment H Revsed 11-22-2011
FROM: NSF, Division of Acquisition & Cooperative Support (DACS)
TO: Whom it may concern
SUBJECT: iTRAK Financial System Past Performance Questionnaire
DATE: October 31, 2011
Your current or former contractor is submitting an offer to provide services to the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency. As part of the Foundation’s evaluation process, the prospective contractor’s past performance is reviewed and scored.
Please complete the survey below to help assess this contractor’s performance under any contracts or task orders performed for you within the last three years. Definitions of Rating Guidelines and Performance Elements are included for your use in completing the survey form. Please send your completed survey to Thurl Frazier, Contracting Officer by email to tfrazier@nsf.gov by December 14, 2011, 12:00 pm Eastern Standard Time. If you have any questions, please call Thurl Frazier (703) 292-2152.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
Contractor’s Name/Location:
Contract #:
| Dates of Service/Contract Term: |
| Agency: |
Description of Services Provided:
| PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS |
| RATINGS |
| Excellent |
| Very Good |
| Good |
| Neutral |
| Fair |
| Poor |
Quality of Product or service
Timeliness
Knowledge level of workers
Supervision during performance
Dependability of workers
Cost Control
Business Relations
Customer Satisfaction
Comment:
Signature Name/Title Phone Date
Agency/Company/Organization
Page 2. Contractor Performance Evaluation Survey
RATING GUIDELINES
| Grade |
| Definition |
Excellent Consistent record of exceptional past performance by the contractor and any proposed major subcontractors on work identical or very similar to the work elements. Many strengths and no weaknesses.
Very Good Consistent record of successful past performance by the contractor and any proposed major subcontractors on work identical or very similar to the work elements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.
Good Successful past performance by the contractor and any proposed major subcontractors on work similar to the work elements. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses.
Neutral Assigned to a contractor with no relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available.
| Fair |
| Weaknesses outweigh strengths. |
| Poor |
| Weaknesses far outweigh strengths. |
PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
| Element |
| Characteristics |
| Quality of Service |
| Did the contractor comply with requirements, exhibit reasonable/cooperative behavior, and/or recommend effective solutions to contract issues? |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Did the contractor consistently meet deadlines without extraordinary assistance from the client; was contract administration completed in timely manner? |
| Knowledge Level of Workers |
| Were the contractor’s employees trained, qualified for their positions, able to accomplish assignments independently and without assistance from supervisors? |
| Supervision during Performance |
| Was the contractor able to accomplish contract requirements independently and without client’s assistance? |
| Dependability of Workers |
| Were the contractor’s employees punctual, reliable, and courteous? Was there abnormal employee turnover? |
Cost Control Did permanent cost savings accrue to the client due to operational improvements? Was work accomplished within established budgets? Were attempts made to control extra cost items? Were proposed costs/prices for changed conditions reasonable? Were invoices accurate and complete?
| Business Relations |
| Was the contractor effective, responsive and proactive during contract performance? Was contractor reasonable/cooperative during negotiations? |
| Customer Satisfaction |
| Were you satisfied with the contractor’s performance? Did the contractor exhibit a businesslike concern for your agency’s interests? Would you continue to do business with the contractor if you had the opportunity? |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .