DOC52PAPT1100021 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Attachment

Solicitation No: DOC52PAPT1100021 US Patent and Trademark Office

Contracting Officer: Joe Troia, (O) 571.272.5562, joe.troia@uspto.gov

ATTACHMENT (1) - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

In order to assess potential vendors under the Department of Commerce, U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) solicitation number DOC52PAPT1100021, the USPTO contracting office is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror.

As a reference for work performed by the firm identified in Section A of this questionnaire, your candid response will assist in the evaluation process. Please complete

Section B of the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible.

Due Date: No later than 5:00 p.m. EST - July 20, 2011.

This past performance questionnaire is to be emailed to the Contracting Officer ONLY, at joe.troia@upto.gov, whereby, the email message shall originate from the reference’s government or commercial e-mail system. This is a major USPTO acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated.

If you have questions regarding this questionnaire or require assistance, please submit inquiries to joe.troia@uspto.gov.

Section A – OFFEROR INFORMATION (This section to be completed by the Offeror.)

Offeror (Company) Name:

Offeror Address:

Offeror DUNS:

Contract/Order Number for which reference is requested:

Procurement Vehicle (e.g.

contract/task order):

Type of Contract (e.g. Fixed

Price, T&M, etc.):

Date of Award:

Period of Performance:

Total Contract Value (including all options if any):

Role on Project (e.g. prime or subcontractor):

NAICS Code:

General description of type of services required under this contract/task order:

mailto:joe.troia@upto.gov mailto:joe.troia@uspto.gov

Solicitation No: DOC52PAPT1100021 US Patent and Trademark Office

Contracting Officer: Joe Troia, (O) 571.272.5562, joe.troia@uspto.gov

Section B – REFERRING ACTIVITY

Evaluator’s Name Evaluator’s Title Agency Phone and Email Address

The following is a table of ratings and descriptors for use below:

ADJECTIVAL Definition

Excellent (E) Proposal demonstrates a superior understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

Good (G) Proposal demonstrates a better than average understanding of requirement and approach that exceeds performance of capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the

Government.

Satisfactory (S) Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Acceptable solution. Few or no strengths.

Marginal (M) Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance.

Unsatisfactory (U) Fails to meet performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal.

Instructions: Assign an “X” to the most appropriate rating for each Performance Element listed below:

Performance Element

E G S M U

Quality of Performance: Please rate the quality of the contractor’s performance; conformance to contract requirements and statement of work;

and quality of services, reports and documentation.

Timeliness of Performance: Please rate the timeliness of the contractor’s performance; completing work efforts on time; submission of reports and documentation; and response to requests for information.

Business Acumen: Please rate the contractor’s management abilities relative to its use of personnel and subcontractors to meet the requirement, cooperation of personnel and subcontractors during performance, turnover of personnel and subcontractors, ability to solve performance problems.

Commitment to Customer Satisfaction: Please rate the contractor’s communications with the Government staff, response to technical directions, and reporting of problems, effectiveness of the contractor’s interface with

Government staff.

Would you do business with this contractor again?

Yes No

Additional comments you would like to share: