Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire.v2.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Environmental Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ003420R0003
- Issued by
- DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal contract solicitation for environmental services. The solicitation is for a contractor to provide environmental compliance, incident response and recovery planning, natural resource management, energy management, and outreach and event planning for the Washington Headquarters Service. Responses to the past performance questionnaire are due by March 25, 2020 and should be submitted to the primary and secondary points of contact listed. The questionnaire includes ratings criteria for quality of service, timeliness, cost control, business relations, management of key personnel, utilization of small business, and customer satisfaction. Reference information and contract details from prior work are also requested.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 4 - Key Personnel Qualification Table.v2.docx | DOCX document | |
| HQ003420R0003-0001 Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - IDIQ Basic Performance Work Statement. v2.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7 - Pricing Submission Worksheet.v2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HQ003420R0003-0001 Amendment.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 9 - DD254 Environmental IDIQ FSD.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Data Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 - PWS - Sample Task Order.pdf | ||
| Attachment 8 - Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 3 - QASP for Environmental Services.pdf | ||
| RFP - HQ003420R0003 - Environmental Services.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - Key Personnel Qualification Table.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - PWS - IDIQ Basic.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7 - Pricing Submission Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
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 6
Environmental Services
HQ003420R0003
Past Performance Questionnaire (Note: Offerors are not to change the spatial structure of this form, i.e. borders, block size, etc.)
| REFERENCE NAME/TITLE: |
| PHONE: |
REFERENCE AGENCY:
EMAIL:
Information Request
Washington Headquarters Service/Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD) is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror. As a reference for work performed by the firm, please complete the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. The questionnaire must be submitted to primary point of contact: Egzi Tamrat at egziakulu.tamrat.civ@mail.mil and secondary point of contract: Ms. Myra Freeberg at myra.m.freeberg.civ@mail.mil by no later than 12:00 PM Eastern Time on Thursday, March 25, 2020.
The four evaluation categories are:
a.) Quality of Service b.) Timeliness or Scheduling of Service c.) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction d.) Key Personnel and Staffing (Including Subcontractors)
In addition to this questionnaire, you may receive a follow-up phone call to confirm or clarify information. This is a major WHS/AD acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding this questionnaire or require assistance, please submit inquiries to the primary point of contact mentioned above.
SECTION 1: CONTRACT DATA
Contract Number:
Contractor Name:
Contract Title:
Contractor Address:
Contract Value:
Contractor DUNS:
Contract Type:
Contract Award Date:
Agency/Org. Name:
Reporting Period (Start):
Place of Performance:
Reporting Period (End):
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Please provide a brief description of the services provided.
RATINGS
The following ratings and definitions apply to the Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, and Management of Key Personnel factors:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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. In addition, 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 assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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). |
| N/A |
| N/A (not applicable) should be used if the rating category does not apply |
| Please explain all ratings of N/A |
SECTION 3: EVALUATION FACTORS
0. Quality of Product or Service. Assess the Contractor's conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or Energy Management).
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Quality of Product or Service: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
0. Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).
This assessment of the Contractor's adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the Contractor's efforts during the assessment period that contributes to or effect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the assessment of liquidated damages, or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract schedule and should therefore be noted in the evaluation.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Schedule: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
0. Cost Control (Not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment). Assess the Contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost.
For example, does the Contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)? Did the Contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings? Were billings current, accurate and complete? Are the Contractor's budgetary internal controls adequate?
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Cost Control: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
0. Business Relations. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Business Relations: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
0. Management of Key Personnel Assess the Contractor's performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Management of Key Personnel: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
0. Utilization of Small Business (Not applicable if contractor is a small business or if the contract did not require a Subcontracting Plan)
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Utilization of Small Business: |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
7. Customer Satisfaction
Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?
Yes
No
Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?
Yes
No
Provide comments on Customer Satisfaction:
[5] **Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104**
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .