Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USCGC MANTA DRYDOCK & REPAIRS Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HSCG80-14-Q-P45482
About this file
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF30_Amendment_01_CGC_Manta.pdf | ||
| SCHEDULE_OF_SUPPLIES_SERVICES_FOR_CGC_MANTA_111413.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| GOVERNMENT_PROPERTY_REPORT_SF_1149.doc | DOC document | |
| SOLCITATION_FOR_CGC_MANTA_DRYDOCK_121813_.doc | DOC document | |
| SPEC_REV0_MANTA_FY14.pdf |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (to be completed by Business for whom you performed work)
| 1. Contractor Name: |
| 2. Contract Number: |
3. Contract Type: ___Firm Fixed Price
___Cost Reimbursement
___ Other (Please Specify)
4. Agency Name:
5. Agency POC:
Phone:
Email:
6. Place of Contract Performance:
7. Period of Performance:
8. Dollar Amount of Award:
Total Dollar Value with Mods:
9. Title of Contract:
10. Description of Contract Service:
11. Complexity of Work: Difficult: ____________ Routine: ____________
NOTE: Please use adjectival ratings from attached sheet.
| 12. Evaluation Factor |
| 13. Comments (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) |
| 14. Rating |
a. Quality of Work
b. Personnel
c. Subcontractor Mgmt
d. Business Relations
e. Timeliness of Performance
f. Customer Satisfaction
g. Cost/Budget Control
15. Would you select this firm again? Please explain. (Attach additional sheet if necessary.)
| 16. Name & Date: |
| 17. Title: |
PAST PERFORMANCE RATING GUIDELINES
Summarize Contractor Performance in each of the rating areas. Assign each area a rating of Unsatisfactory, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent. Use the following instructions as guidance in making these evaluations. Note: There is no corresponding guidance for “Customer Satisfaction”. Please use the comments area on the preceding form to justify the rating given “Customer Satisfaction.”
| Ratings |
| Quality of Work/ |
Personnel/Service -Compliance w/contract requirements
-Accuracy of reports
-Appropriateness of personnel
-Technical excellence
Cost Control
-Within budget
-Current, accurate, complete billings
-Relationship of negotiated costs to actual
-Cost efficiencies
-Change orders issued Timeliness of
Performance
-Met interim milestones
-Reliable
-Responsive to technical direction
-Completed on time Business Relations/Sub Contractor Mgmt -Effective Mgmt
-Businesslike correspondence
-Responsive to contract reqmnts
-Prompt notification of problems
-Reasonable/ cooperative
-Flexible
-Pro-active
-Effective SB/SDB
Subcontract Program
| Unsatisfactory |
| Nonconformances |
are comprising the achievement of contract reqmnts
| Cost issues are comprising performance |
| Delays are compromising achievement of contract reqmts |
| Response is not effective |
| Poor |
| Nonconformances |
require major agency resources to ensure achievement of contract reqmnts
| Cost issues require major agency resources to ensure achievement of contract reqmnts |
| Delays require major agency resources to ensure achievement of contract reqmnts |
| Response is marginally effective |
| Fair |
| Nonconformances require minor agency resources to ensure achievement of contract reqmnts |
| Cost issues require minor agency resources to ensure |
achievement of contract reqmnts
| Delays require minor agency resources to ensure achievement of contract reqmnts |
| Response is somewhat effective |
| Good |
| Nonconformances |
do not impact achievement of contract reqmnts Cost issues do not impact achievement of contract reqmnts
| Delays do not impact achievement of contract reqmnts |
| Response is usually effective |
| Excellent |
| There are no quality problems |
| There are no cost issues |
| There are no delays |
| Response is effective |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .