Attachment_3_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Armed Ground Transportation Service Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HSCEDM-17-R-00003
- Issued by
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
About this file
Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HSCEDM-17-R-00003_000005.pdf | ||
| Sections_B-M_Amendment_4.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4_CLIN_Description_Amendment_4.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HSCEDM-17-R-00003_000004.pdf | ||
| G-391_Amendment_4.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HSCEDM-17-R-00003_000003.pdf | ||
| HSCEDM-17-R-00003_000002.pdf | ||
| HSCEDM-17-R-00003_000001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_Wage_Determination.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_Mandatory_RFP_Questions_Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_6_PWS_Hold_Harmless_Agreement_(8-16).docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_No._HSCEDM-17-R-00003.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_CLIN_Description.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 14
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 3 HSCEDM-17-R-00003
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART ONE: INSTRUCTIONS
The company who has provided you with this form is proposing on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) solicitation to provide Baltimore Guard and Transportation services. Past Performance is an extremely important part of the evaluation criteria for this acquisition, so your input is very important. The information is to be provided directly to the DHS Contract Specialist: James Abyad, via e-mail: James.Abyad@ice.dhs.gov and copy to Contracting Officers, Sang Han via e-mail: Sang.Han@ice.dhs.gov no later than 11:00 am EST on November 22, 2016. For questions, please contact the Contracting Officer, Sang Han, at 202-732-2544 or via e-mail: Sang.Han@ice.dhs.gov. This information will not be disclosed to the Offeror.
In addition to this questionnaire, you may receive a follow-up phone call to confirm or clarify the information that you have provided. Thank you for your assistance in returning this questionnaire by the required date.
PART TWO: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. OFFEROR’S NAME AND ADDRESS 2. CUSTOMER ORGANIZATION
| ______________________________________________________ | _________________________________ |
| ______________________________________________________ | _________________________________ |
| ______________________________________________________ | _________________________________ |
| ______________________________________________________ | _________________________________ |
| ______________________________________________________ | _________________________________ |
3. CONTRACT NUMBER: _______________________________ 2a. INDIVIDUAL RESPONDING
4. ESTIMATED CONTRACT VALUE: _____________________ NAME:
5. CONTRACT AWARD DATE: ______/___________/____ _ TITLE:
6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: __________TO___________ _ PHONE NO:
7. CONTRACT TYPE 8. COMPLEXITY OF WORK
(Check Responses All That Apply): (Check ONLY One Response):
___ Cost-Plus Fixed Price ___ Cost-Plus Award Fee ___ DIFFICULT
___ Time & Material ___ Fixed Price ___ ROUTINE
| ___ OTHER | THE COMPANY’S ROLE | Prime | |
| Sub-Contractor | |||
| Teaming Partner |
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SUBCONTRACTING : ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR CONTRACT and PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS:
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION -
PART THREE: OFFEROR PERFORMANCE RATING
On the following pages, please evaluate the Offeror’s performance in each question. Determine the adjectival rating that most nearly represents your experience with this Offeror and indicate your assessment by placing an “X” under the appropriate heading.
Adjectival ratings are defined below and should be used as a reference in assessing performance:
| · SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE | The Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. | |||
| SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE | The Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. | |||
| LIMITED CONFIDENCE | The Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. | |||
| NO CONFIDENCE | The Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. | |||
| UNKNOWN/NEUTRAL | The Offeror’s performance record is so sparse; a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned. | |||
| Question | ||||
| Excellent | ||||
| Very Good | ||||
| Satisfactory | ||||
| Unsatisfactory | ||||
| N/A |
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to provide software solutions that fully met your intended objectives?
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to implement software?
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to deliver software releases, support services, documentation, and help desk assistance that met or exceeded your standards for acceptance?
How do you rate the Contractor’s adherence to Federal statutory and regulatory requirements (such as security, privacy, and accessibility)?
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to adhere to the initial contract delivery schedule?
How well did the Contractor comply with the terms of the contract and provide accurate, complete, and timely deliverables?
How do you rate the contractor’s ability to manage the project using an effective project management system or approach that included planning, budgeting, status tracking, cost reporting, baseline management, critical path analysis, and work breakdown structure?
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to execute the Performance Work Statement in a consistently effective and high quality manner?
How do you rate the effectiveness of the Contractor in identifying, evaluating, communicating, and mitigating risks?
How do you rate the Contractor’s ability to successfully collaborate with other contractors involved in the project?
Did the Contractor complete the project within the proposed cost?
Did the Contractor provide adequate time for you to review and approve of interim deliverables prior to deliverable due dates?
Were you satisfied with the rate of turnover of Contractor resources on the program?
How do you rate the Contractor in collaborating with end-users?
How do you rate the Contractor in collaborating with your technical staff?
How do you rate the Contractor in collaborating with your technical program management staff?
How knowledgeable was the Contractor’s labor force with regard to the product they implemented for you?
How responsive was the Contractor’s labor force to your customer service needs?
How effectively did the Contractor gather and analyze user requirements in performing software design services?
How effectively was the Contractor able performing configuration management functions?
How effective was the Contractor’s subcontract management?
How effective was the Contractor at developing and implementing an effective quality assurance program?
1. Please rate the overall performance of the Contractor:
| SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent (NLT 3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. |
| SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent (NLT 3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. |
| LIMITED CONFIDENCE |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent (NLT 3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. |
| NO CONFIDENCE |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent (NLT 3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform. |
| UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (NEUTRAL) |
| The Offeror does not have recent (NLT 3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance; or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse; a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned. |
COMMENTS OR INSIGHTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .