Attachment_4__Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HSTS01-15-R-HRM015
About this file
Attachment 4
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
HSTS01-15-R-HRM015
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE
Attachment 4
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Offeror Being Evaluated
Organization Completing Questionnaire
Referring Organization Contract Number
Referring Organization Delivery Order/Task Order Number
Evaluator Point of Contact (Include Phone and Email)
Length of Involvement with Offeror
Deliverable / Service Description
EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Office of Acquisition proposes to acquire under solicitation HSTS01-15-R-HRM015 Catalog of Assessments and Testing System (CATS) services for the Office of Human Capital (OHC) Organizational Assessment Service (OAS). The contractor shall assist the OAS with implementation of the CATS system to evaluate candidates for a variety of positions including administrative, management, professional, and executive positions. These positions will be in a variety of business, technical, and security operations-related disciplines at the entry-level, team lead, first-line supervisor, manager, and executive levels.
Please provide your assessment of the company’s level of past performance on the contract for which you are a reference. Mark the appropriate block, indicating whether the contractor’s/sub-contractor’s past performance was exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, or no rating using the following rating guidelines. Space is provided for comments.
Submit completed Cover Sheet and Questionnaire by 4:00 PM local Washington, DC Time, July 20, 2015.
ATTN: Victor H. Carden Email: Victor.Carden@tsa.dhs.gov Phone: (571) 227-4834
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “NA”.
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
Past Performance Ratings
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Exceptional |
| The Contractor’s performance consistently exceeded the contractual requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with no problems. Please provide specific comments supporting your rating. |
| Very Good |
| The contractor met all the contractual requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with no problems. Contractor endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the contract requirements. Please provide specific comments supporting your rating. |
| Satisfactory |
| The Contractor’s performance met the contractual requirements, and you would willingly do business with the Contractor again. The contractual performance was accomplished with minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. Please provide specific comments supporting your rating. |
| Marginal |
| The contractor failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan. Please provide specific comments supporting your rating. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| The Contractor’s performance failed to meet contractual requirements, and you would not do business with the Contractor again under any circumstances. The contractual performance being assessed contains problems for which the contractor‘s corrective actions were ineffective. Please provide specific comments supporting your rating. |
| No Rating |
| Used if you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement and does not apply, or you have no knowledge of the item in question. Please explain in the comments section. This is neither a negative or positive assessment. |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| No |
Rating a.) QUALITY ASSURANCE:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship.
(2) The contractor managed documentation and presented information in a clear, concise and organized manner with little or no errors.
b.) PRICE CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor controlled costs and performed the effort within the estimated price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
c.) PERFORMANCE
(1) The contractor managed schedules and met deadlines according to the requirements.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
(3) The contractor provided competent staff that was trained and suitable for the job.
(4) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) or the Contracting Officer Representative (COR).
(5) Rate the overall performance of the management team.
| d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS: |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| No |
Rating
(1) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication with the TPOC, COR and/or Contracting Officer and kept them apprised of all work in a timely manner, including urgent issues requiring special attention.
(2) The Contractor cooperated with the Client in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
e.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The products provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
COMMENTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .