Attachment_3_-_FLASH_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FBO FLASH UPDATE- Reconsideration Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DHS-AGILE-00001
About this file
Attachment 3 - FLASH Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 37
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
Sheet1
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
DHS FLEXIBLE AGILE SUPPORT FOR THE HOMELAND (FLASH)
| INSTRUCTIONS |
| The company providing this questionnaire to you is proposing in response to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) solicitation that will create an agency-wide contract vehicle to provide DHS Headquarters and its components with agile design and development support services. Because Past Performance is one of the evaluation factors for this competition, your input concerning the company’s performance on previous, similar contracts is important. |
Please read the questions listed below and provide a response to each question with respect to the contractor’s performance on a contract that they supported you on.
The company that you are rating in the questionnaire is required to return completed Past Performance Questionnaires with their proposal submission which are due to the government by no later than the closing date of the solicitation, August 16, 2016. Therefore, please return the questionnaire to the company in enough time to allow them to submit to the government before that due date. A follow-up telephone interview with you may be conducted by the government for clarification purposes.
The contractor is allowed to fill out all sections of this questionnaire except for responding to the past performance questions with ratings. Those past performance ratings in response to the questions posed must be provided by you, the evaluator.
If you have questions, please contact:
Erik Stephenson, FLASH Contracting Officer Erik.Stephenson@HQ.DHS.GOV
| EVALUATOR'S INFORMATION |
| Evaluator's Name |
| Evaluator's Title and Organization |
| Evaluator's Email Address |
| Evaluator's Phone Number |
| Evaluation Date Completed |
| CONTRACT INFORMATION |
| Contractor's Name |
| Customer Organization's Name |
| Contract/Task Number |
| Contract Name (ie. FLASH contract) |
| Contract Type (Fixed Price, Time & Materials, Cost-Reimbursable, etc.) |
| Contract Award Date |
| Period of Performance |
| Total Contract Value |
| Value of Contractor’s Share of the Contract |
| Was the contractor a prime contractor or subcontractor? (Prime or Sub) |
| Competitive Award? (Y or N) |
| Provide a brief description of the contract requirements |
| CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE RATING |
| For each question listed below, choose the rating that most accurately represents the contractor’s performance on your contract. |
Please indicate your response for each question by placing an “X” under the corresponding rating.
Ratings Definitions:
Superior = Based on the offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory = Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Unsatisfactory = Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
| Question | Superior | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Applicable |
| 1. How well did the contractor apply their chosen Agile methodology? | ||||
| 2. How well did the contractor effectively use artifacts in their Agile processes? | ||||
| 3. How well did the contractor foster efficient communication within their team? | ||||
| 4. How well did the contractor effectively make tradeoff decisions between user needs, business goals, and technical feasibility? | ||||
| 5. How effective was the contractor’s approach to learning about users? | ||||
| 6. How well did the contractor’s design yield an optimal user experience? | ||||
| 7. How well did the contractor utilize automated testing best practices and use tests to improve the quality of their solution? | ||||
| 8. How well did the contractor’s coding practices result in high quality code? | ||||
| 9. How well did the contractor’s deployed solution operate? | ||||
| 10. How well was the contractor’s Continuous Integration/Continuous Development (CI/CD) pipeline automated to provide continuous deployment? | ||||
| 11. How well was the contractor able to provide highly-skilled resources in a timely manner to satisfy requirements? | ||||
| 12. How well the contractor able to provide effective management, including subcontracts; notification of problems; and ability to transition resources and personnel? | ||||
| 13. How well was the contractor able to provide current, accurate, complete billings and cost efficiencies? | ||||
| Additional Comments | ||||
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? (Y or N) |
If No, please provide explanation.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .