Attach 18.doc

DOC document 66 KB Posted

Attached to
IT services
Solicitation number
DTNH22-12-R-00542
Issued by

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 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 PDF
DTNH22-12-R-00542.pdf 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 .