Past_Performance_Information_(PPI).doc
DOC document 54 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HSCG80-13-R-P45006
About this file
Attachment 3 Past Performance Information (PPI)
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (PPI) – ATTACHMENT (3)
Contractor’s Name:
Project Title:
Contract No:
Performance Period:
Contract Value:
| Quality of Product or Service |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| Quality of Product or Service – please rate |
Comments for Quality of Product or Service
| 2. |
| Cost Control – please rate |
Comments for Cost Control
Timeliness of Performance
| 3. |
| Timeliness of Performance – please rate |
Comments for Timeliness of Performance
Business Relations
| 4. |
| Business Relations – please rate |
Comments for Business Relations
Subcontracts
Were Subcontractors Used? ____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:
The ratings used on the Contractor Performance Survey shall be used to evaluate Past Performance. See the description of ratings below.
| Criteria |
| Quality of Product or Service |
| Cost Control |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Business Relations |
| 0 = Unsatisfactory |
| Contractor is not in compliance and is jeopardizing achievement of contract objectives |
| Contractor is unable to manage costs effectively |
| Contractor delays are jeopardizing performance of contract |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is not effective |
| 1 = Poor |
| Major problems have been encountered |
| Contractor is having major difficulty in managing costs effectively |
| Contractor is having major difficulty meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective |
| 2 = Fair |
| Some problems have been encountered |
| Contractor is having some problems in managing costs effectively |
| Contractor is having some problems meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective |
| 3 = Good |
| Minor inefficiencies, errors have been identified |
| Contractor is usually effective in managing costs effectively |
| Contractor is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is usually effective |
| 4 = Excellent |
| Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and or delivers quality products/service |
| Contractor is effective in managing costs and submits current, accurate, and completed billings |
| Contractor is effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is effective |
| 5 = 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” |
| 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” |
| 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” |
| The Contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that satisfies 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” |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .