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

Other files attached to DEFENSE AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (DAMIS) SUPPORT, newest first.
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 SignatureDate

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .