The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE
Past Performance information is being requested on:
Reference:
Date of Services:
Ratings used on the NIH Contractor Performance System will be used to evaluate Past Performance. See the Rating Guidelines attached.
| 1. |
| Quality of Product or Service – please rate |
Comments for Quality of Product or Service
Comments for Cost Control – N/A
| 3. |
| Timeliness of Performance – please rate |
Comments for Timeliness of Performance
| 4. |
| Business Relations – please rate |
Comments for Business Relations
Subcontracts
Were Subcontracts involved? ____Yes ____No
Comments for Subcontracts
Customer Satisfaction
Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? ____Yes ____No
Comments for Customer Satisfaction
Past Performance Information Provided by:
RATING GUIDELINES
Quality of Product or Service 0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent 5 = Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements. |
| Poor |
| Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Cost Control 0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent 5 = Outstanding
| Unsatisfactory |
| Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the contractor achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Timeliness of Performance
| Unsatisfactory |
| Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no delays and the contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Business Relations
| Unsatisfactory |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards. |
| Poor |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective. |
| Fair |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective. |
| Good |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is consistently effective. |
| Excellent |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeds Government expectation. |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |