HSHQDC-15-R-00089 - Attachment J7 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 92 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center Federally Funded Research and Development Center
- Solicitation number
- HSHQDC-15-R-00089
About this file
Attachment J7
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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
Please complete the following questionnaire by filling in the highlighted areas and return it to the attention of the individual named below, no later than the closing date of RFP HSHQDC-15-R-00089:
| Name: |
| John Whipple |
| Title: |
| Contract Specialist |
| Email: |
| john.whipple@hq.dhs.gov |
| This survey pertains to: |
| Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center FFRDC |
| Department/Component: |
| DHS/S&T |
| Solicitation Number: |
| HSHQDC-15-R-00089 |
| Date of Survey: |
| <<<INSERT DATE>>> |
Name of Person Completing Survey:
Your Company/Agency:
Your Title:
Survey Period of Performance:
General description of products/services required under the contract:
RATINGS
Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible.
Assign each area a rating by placing an “X” in the column cooresponding to the selected rating (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, or Unsatisfactory). Use the attached Rating Guidelines as guidance in making these evaluations. Place an “X” in the box under N/A if that Assessment Area was not a rating consideration or inapplicable to the contract effort.
QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE
| Assessment Area |
| Outstanding |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS: |
| RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING: |
| <<TYPE HERE>> |
| 2. |
| ACCURACY OF REPORTS: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 3. |
| LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 4. |
| LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 5. |
| CAPABILITY OF PERSONNEL TO PERFORM REQUIRED SERVICES: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 6. |
| EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONNEL IN PERFORMING REQUIRED SERVICES: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 7. |
| OVERALL PRODUCT/SERVICE QUALITY: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 8. |
| PRODUCT PERFORMANCE: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| Assessment Area |
| Outstanding |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| RELIABILITY: |
| RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING: |
| <<TYPE HERE>> |
| 2. |
| RESPONSIVENESS TO TECHNICAL DIRECTION: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 3. |
| MET CONTRACT DELIVERY SCHEDULES AND/OR TASK DEADLINES: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
BUSINESS RELATIONS:
BUSINESS RELATIONS
| Assessment Area |
| Outstanding |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTS: |
| RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING: |
| <<TYPE HERE>> |
| 2. |
| REASONABLE/COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 3. |
| RESPONSIVE TO CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 4. |
| TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 5. |
| FLEXIBILITY IN ADDRESSING CONCERNS: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
COST CONTROL:
COST CONTROL
| Assessment Area |
| Outstanding |
| Good |
| Acceptable |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| BILLINGS WERE CURRENT, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE: |
| RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING: |
| <<TYPE HERE>> |
| 2. |
| CLEAR RELATIONSHIP OF NEGOTIATED COSTS TO ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
| 3. |
| CONTRACTOR’S ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE AND LEVERAGE COST EFFICIENCIES: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
| Assessment Area |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| THE CONTRACTOR’S MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL WERE COMMITTED TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: |
| RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING: |
| <<TYPE HERE>> |
| 2. |
| THE CONTRACTOR’S ONSITE PERSONNEL WERE COMMITTED TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: |
RATIONALE TO SUPPORT RATING:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
<<TYPE HERE>>
PIID: HSHQDC-15-R-00089
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
19 August 2015
RATING GUIDELINES
| QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE |
| COST CONTROL |
| TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE |
| BUSINESS RELATIONS |
| Outstanding |
| There were no quality issues, and the contractor significantly exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the customer. |
| There were no cost management issues, and the contractor significantly exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the customer. |
| There were no delays, and the contractor significantly bettered the agreed upon schedule. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues significantly exceeded customer expectations. |
| Good |
| There were no, or minimal, quality problems, and the contractor exceeded the contract requirements. |
| There were no, or minimal, cost management issues, and the contractor exceeded the contract requirements. |
| There were no, or minimal, delays that affected achievement of contract requirements; however, the contractor was still able to better or meet the agreed upon schedule. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues exceeded the contract requirements. |
| Acceptable |
| The contractor met the contract requirements. However, overall compliance required some assistance from the customer. |
| The contractor met the contract requirements. However, customer provided some assistance to the contractor to manage costs. |
| The contractor met the agreed upon schedule. However, customer provided some assistance to ensure the contractor met the agreed upon schedule. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues met the contract requirements. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances compromised the achievement of contract requirements. |
| Contractor was unable to manage costs effectively. |
| Contractor delays jeopardized achievement of contract objectives. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues were not timely or effective. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .