Attachment_2_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DEFENSE AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (DAMIS) SUPPORT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HE1254-15-Q-8008
- Issued by
- Department of Defense Education Activity
About this file
Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment_1_PWS-.docx | DOCX document |
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
Attachment 2
Past Performance Questionnaire Template
Past Performance Questionnaire
Instructions:
· Sections I and II to be completed by the Quoter/Major Subcontractor and provided to the assessor (Government personnel that had experience with the Quoter/Major Subcontractor on a previous relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, to verify Sections I through III, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office. The Quoter should also submit with its quote (by the closing date of the Solicitation) copies of Sections I and II of all questionnaires as provided to assessors.
· Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Sections III through VII to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.
Message to the assessor: Your assistance is requested by the DoDEA Contracting Office to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below. In efforts to expedite receipt of the requested information, the Contracting Office respectfully requests that you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) with your signature to: jerome.carter@hq.dodea.edu.
I. Solicitation Data (for the proposed effort)
| Solicitation Number |
| HF102650150002000 |
| Project/Requirement |
| Enter Project Name/Requirement Title |
| Customer/Agency |
| Enter Project Office |
| Project/Requirement Description |
| Enter succinct Project/Requirement Description |
II. Current or Historical Contract Information
Assessor: The performance data submitted by the Quoter is |_| correct or |_| incorrect.
CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS:
Contract No
Type of Contract
| Initial |
| Final |
Contract Value
Period of Performance/Delivery Schedule
Project/Requirement Description
Please select from the following as it applies to this contract:
| Contracting Role |
| |_| PRIME |
| |_| SUBCONTRACTOR |
| Termination History |
| |_| Convenience |
| |_| Default |
| |_| N/A |
III. Assessor Information
Assessor Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address
Identify your role in the contract award or administration and the period of your involvement.
| Role |
| Period of Involvement |
Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)
Contract Specialist
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)
Technical Project Lead/Project Officer
Quality Assurance Specialist
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Auditor
Other:
IV. Past Performance Assessment Evaluation and Definitions
Past Performance Assessment Evaluates the follows:
1. Evaluates how well the contractor performed on the contracts.
The following definitions should be used in your assessment of Contractor performance.
1. Past Performance Assessment Ratings
Evaluation Ratings Definitions
Table 1. Performance Assessment
| Rating |
| Descriptions |
| Note |
| Exceptional . . . . |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good . . . . . |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory . . . . . |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal . . . . . . |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| Unsatisfactory . . . |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
V. Performance Evaluation
1. Technical Performance
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to meet the technical requirements?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Technical Performance
Please provide rationale for the assigned rating.
b. Assess the Contractor’s technical performance in the following areas.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Software Development
Testing
Integration
All comments are appreciated; however, at a minimum, rationale must be provided for ratings of ‘Substantial Confidence’ or ‘No Confidence.’
2. Schedule Performance
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to adhere to contract schedules and deadlines?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Schedule Performance
Please provide rationale for assigned rating.
3. Management
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s management performance?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Management
b. Assess the Contractor’s management performance in the following areas.
| Management |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT—Timely award and management of subcontracts and meeting subcontracting goals for small business, small disadvantaged business, etc.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT—Effectiveness of integration and coordination of all activities required to execute the contract, use of resources, assignment of responsibility, internal coordination and communication, and risk management practices.
MANAGEMENT OF PERSONNEL—Ability to select, retain, support, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise necessary to accomplish the Government’s requirements within schedule and budget.
All comments are appreciated; however, at a minimum, rationale must be provided for ratings of ‘Substantial Confidence’ or ‘No Confidence.’
4. Cost Control
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to forecast, manage, and control costs?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Cost Control
b. Assess the Contractor’s cost performance in the following areas.
| Management |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
COST REPORTING—Accuracy and timeliness of the Contractor’s cost reporting data.
RESOLUTION OF COST PROBLEMS—Commitment to resolve cost issues—may include utilizing principles such as Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)
ADHERENCE TO COST TARGETS—Ability to establish and meet the realistic cost targets.
SUBCONTRACT COST MANAGEMENT— Ability to forecast, negotiate, and control subcontract costs
All comments are appreciated; however, at a minimum, rationale must be provided for ratings of ‘Substantial Confidence’ or ‘No Confidence.’
V. Overall Rating of Contractor’s performance (technical, schedule, management, and cost) on contract being assessed.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
VI. General Comments:
| _________________________________ | ____________________ | |
| Assessor’s Signature | Date |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .