Attach 18.doc
DOC document 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IT services
- Solicitation number
- DTNH22-12-R-00542
About this file
PDPS Past Performance Questionnaire (3 pages) referenced in Section L.10.1
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1 NDR.doc | DOC document | |
| NDR Responses for DOT PDPS RFP DTNH22-12-R-00542.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach 17.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 7.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 23.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 5.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 19.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 25.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 26.pdf | ||
| Attach 24.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 16.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 11.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 10.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 22.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 15.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 13.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 6.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 4.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 14.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 21.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 9.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 8.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 3.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 20.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 12.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach 1.doc | DOC document | |
| DTNH22-12-R-00542.pdf | ||
| DTNH22-12-R-00542.pdf |
Show all 28
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
Attachment 18, Section J
PDPS Past Performance Questionnaire
Performance Questionnaire
The government representative will inform the party (evaluator) providing the information that “By law, the Government will not disclose the names of individuals providing reference information during discussions with the Contractor identified below”:
| NAME OF CONTRACTOR |
| ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR |
Evaluator’s Printed Name
Title/Role (e.g., Program Manager, Contracting Officer)
Evaluator’s Printed Name
Title/Role (e.g., Program Manager, Contracting Officer)
Instructions
Two forms are provided below to document the government’s conversation with the reference provided by the contractor: (1) Performance Rating Form; and (2) Supplemental Comment Form. The evaluators will be requested to use the following standards in arriving at their ratings.
· Exceptional/Excellent: Exceeds specific performance or capability in a beneficial way; has high probability of satisfying the requirement; and has no significant weakness.
· Acceptable/Good: Meets evaluation standards; has good probability of satisfying the requirement; and any weakness can be readily corrected.
· Marginal/Fair: Fails to meet evaluation standards; has a low probability of satisfying the requirements; and has significant deficiencies but correctable.
· Unacceptable/Poor: Fails to meet the minimum requirement; and deficiency requires major revision to make it correct.
· Other: If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A”. If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.
PERFORMANCE RATING FORM
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED:
| NAME OF EVALUATOR |
| EVALUATOR’S COMPANY/AGENCY |
| DATE EVALUATED |
| TIME EVALUATED |
| NAME OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE DOCUMENTING EVALUATION |
| OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE |
| TELEPHONE NO. OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE |
| Performance element |
| Outstanding |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Other |
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)
2. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS
(For example: Was the experience of subcontractors directly applicable to the project? Did the contractor successfully meet the subcontracting goals and objectives as related to small, woman-owned and small disadvantaged businesses? Did the contractor successfully utilize and manage all subcontractor resources?)
4. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)
5. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)
6. COMMUNICATION
(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)
7. COST CONTROL
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)
8. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)
9. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(For example: did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? Did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
| For #10 - #12, please answer “YES” or “NO” as appropriate. |
| YES |
| NO |
10.
11.
12.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT FORM
Document any additional comments by the evaluator regarding the performance element ratings in the space below, adding pages as necessary.
1 | Page
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .