Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ASR-9 Serial Interface System (ASIS) 2 Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) SIR Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DTFAWA-17-R-00033
About this file
Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (docx)
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 42
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
Past Performance Questionnaire
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
I. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
| i. |
| Name: |
| ii. |
| Description |
| iii. |
| Geographic distribution |
of services under this contract, i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide:
| iv. |
| Number of locations serviced by this contract: |
II. EVALUATION
| A. |
| PERFORMANCE HISTORY: |
| 1. |
| To what extend did the |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 |
contractor adhere to contract delivery
Exceeded minimum requirements 3 schedules.
Met minimum requirements 2
Less than minimum requirements 1
Comment:
| 2. |
| To what extent did the |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 |
contractor submit
| required reports and |
| Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
documentation in a timely
| manner? |
| Met minimum requirements 2 |
Less than minimum requirements 1
Comment:
| 3. |
| To what extent were the |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 |
contractor’s reports and
| documentation accurate and |
| Exceeded minimum contractual requirements 3 |
complete?
Met minimum requirements 2
Less than minimum requirements 1
Comment:
| 4. |
| To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from |
| Considerably successful 4 |
Generally successful 3
| government counterparts? |
| Little success 2 |
No success 1
Comment:
| 5. |
| To what extent did the contractor display initiative in meeting requirements? |
| Displayed considerable initiative 4 Displayed some initiative 3 Displayed little initiative 2 |
Displayed no initiative 1
Comment:
| 6. |
| Did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely |
fashion to the contract to meet the requirement and to successfully solve problems?
Provided abundant resources 4 Provided sufficient resources 3 Provided minimal resources 2 Provided insufficient resources 1
Comment:
| 7. |
| To what extent did the contractor submit change orders and other required proposals in a timely manner? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Met minimum requirements 2
Less than minimum 1
Comment:
| 8. |
| To what extent did the contractor respond positively and promptly to technical directions, contract change orders, etc.? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Less than minimum requirements 1
Comment:
| 9. |
| To what extent was the contractor’s maintenance and problem tracking/reporting documentation timely, accurate, and have appropriate content? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Comment:
| 10. |
| To what extent was the contractor effective in interfacing with the Government’s staff? |
| Extremely effective 4 |
Generally effective 3
Generally ineffective 2
Extremely ineffective 1
Comment:
| B. |
| TERMINATION HISTORY |
| 11. | |
| Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience? | |
| Yes [ Default | Convenience ] No |
If yes, explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).
Comment:
| 12. |
| Are there any pending terminations? |
| Yes No |
If yes, explain and indicate the status.
Comment:
| C. |
| EXPERIENCE HISTORY |
| 13. |
| How effective has the contractor been in identifying user requirements? |
| Extremely effective 4 |
Generally effective 3
Generally ineffective 2
Extremely ineffective 1
Comment:
| 14. |
| What level of integration experience has the contractor demonstrated in the reconfiguration of government owned software, commercial software, and government furnished hardware? |
| Considerable surpass minimum experience 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Met minimum contractual requirements 2
Comment:
| 15. |
| To what extent was the maintenance and |
problem reporting/ tracking documentation produced by the contractor’s efforts satisfactory to the users?
Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 Met minimum contractual requirements 2
Comment:
| 16. |
| To what extent did the contractor coordinate, integrate, and provide for effective subcontractor management? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Comment:
| 17. |
| To what extent did the contractor provide timely technical assistance, both on- site and off-site, when responding to problems encountered in the field? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Comment:
| 18. |
| To what extent did the contractor achieve effective logistics support, i.e., replacement parts, personnel, etc.? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Comment:
| 19. |
| To what extent did the contractor provide |
quality replacement parts?
Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3
Comment:
| 20. |
| To what extent did the contractor meet the repair/response times in the contract? |
| Considerably surpassed minimum requirements 4 Exceeded minimum requirements 3 |
Comment:
| D. |
| COST MANAGEMENT |
| 21. |
| To what extent did the contractor meet the proposed cost estimates? |
| Less than estimated cost 4 Comparatively equal to estimate 3 Exceeded the costs 2 |
Considerably surpassed estimate 1
Comment:
| E. |
| NARRATIVE SUMMARY |
| Use this section to explain additional information not included above. |
Comment:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .