ATTACHMENT_05_-_Past_Peformance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HSCEDM-14-R-00003
- Issued by
-
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
About this file
ATTACHMENT 05 - Past Peformance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
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
HSCEDM-14-R-00003
Attachment 5
Attachment 5
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
REF: HSCEDM-14-R-00003 Detention Management, Transportation and Food Services
PART ONE: INSTRUCTIONS
The company who has provided you with this form is proposing on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Request for Proposal (RFP) for Detention Management Services to include Detention Management and Food Services at the Port Isabel Detention Center (PIDC). Past Performance is an important part of the evaluation criteria for this acquisition, so your input is equally important.
Please provide an honest assessment and return the questionnaire to the Vendor or to the ICE POC (Benjamin Golway, Contract Specialist) via email at ICE-DMProposals@ice.dhs.gov no later than COB ______________. If you have any questions, please contact Benjamin Golway no later than COB _______________.
PART TWO: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. VENDOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
2. CUSTOMER AGENCY
3. CONTRACT NUMBER:
2a. EVALUATOR
4. CONTRACT VALUE: $______________________
NAME:
5. CONTRACT AWARD DATE: ________________
TITLE:
6. CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: ___________
PHONE NO:
7. CONTRACT TYPE (Circle All That Apply): FP
CPFF
CPAF OTHER
8. COMPLEXITY OF WORK (Circle One Response): DIFFICULT ROUTINE
9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS:
PART THREE: VENDOR PERFORMANCE RATING
On the following pages, please summarize the vendor’s performance. Each section has a set of questions with five possible adjectival ratings. Determine the adjectival rating that most nearly represents your experience with this vendor and indicate your assessment by placing an “X” under the appropriate heading. These sections are:
A. QUALITY OF SERVICE
B. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
C. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
Also, it is very important (and beneficial to our evaluation) if you submit examples and/or comments as to why they were rated as such in the sections herein.
Adjectival ratings are defined below and should be used as a reference in assessing performance:
| Exceptional |
| Contractor’s performance significantly exceeded most or all contract requirements. 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 were highly effective. |
| 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 were effective. |
| 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. |
| Neutral |
| In the case of a vendor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. |
| 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. |
| 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 serious problems(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| A |
| QUALITY OF GOODS/SERVICES |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| N |
| M |
| U |
| 1 |
| Rate the overall quality of the services received. |
| 2 |
| Company’s handling of issues or problems. |
COMMENTS:
| B |
| CONTRACT PERFORMANCE |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| N |
| M |
| U |
| 1 |
| Was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from counterparts? |
| 2 |
| How effective has the contractor been in understanding and responding to additional user requirements? |
| C |
| TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| N |
| M |
| U |
| 1 |
| Were the services provided according to contract requirements? |
| 2 |
| Delivery of reports or other documentation? |
PART THREE: VENDOR PERFORMANCE RATING
1.
Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience?
YES
If so, by Default
Convenience ____
NO
If yes, please explain (e.g. inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules -also include contract number, name, address, and phone number of Terminating
Contracting Officer - TCO).
2.
What was the contractor’s greatest strength in the performance of the contract?
3.
What was the contractor’s greatest weakness in the performance of the contract?
4.
Would you award another contract to this contractor?
YES
No
WHY?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PART FOUR: EVALUATOR’S CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR
TITLE OF EVALUATOR
DATE
ICE RFP# HSCEDM-14-R-00003
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .