Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)-Ramstein RMC.doc
DOC document 66 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT1129RamsteinRMC86MED
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for a medical services contract issued by the Defense Health Agency's Northeastern Markets Contracting Division on behalf of the 86th Medical Group at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. The solicitation seeks one Licensed Practical Nurse, one Infection Preventionist, and three Medical Services Coordinators to provide medical consultation and administrative support services for the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) staff and beneficiaries, with a focus on assisting patients in validating specialty care appointments at the Referral Management Center (RMC).
The PPQ is designed to evaluate a contractor's past performance across three key areas: Quality of Services, Timeliness of Performance/Services, and Business Relations. The evaluation uses a rating scale from Unsatisfactory to Exceptional, with specific criteria for each performance category. The questionnaire must be completed by September 23, 2025, at 3:00 PM EDT, and returned to the contracting office. The contract is structured for one base year with four option years, and potential offerors will be assessed based on their ability to meet the detailed performance requirements outlined in the document.
View the file
Other files
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 QUESTIONNAIRE #1
To the Offeror’s Reference:
The Defense Health Agency's (DHA) Northeastern Markets Contracting (NM-CD) is procuring Medical Consultation and Administrative Support Services on behalf of the 86th Medical Group, Ramstein Air Base, Germany. Past Performance is an important part of the evaluation criteria for this acquisition, so your input is very important.
Please complete the following questionnaire to assist this office’s evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. A typed (preferred) or handwritten response is sufficient. If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages.
Please complete this form no later than September 23, 2025, by 03:00 PM (EDT) and return it the company that provided it to you for their submission to this DHA Contracting Office.
Thank you for your assistance in this source selection. If you have any questions, please contact Philip Atwell Contract Analyst, (support contractor with Amyx Inc.) at philip.b.atwell.ctr@health.mil.
A. EVALUATED CONTRACTOR’S INFORMATION:
Company/Organization Name being evaluated:
Cage Code:
Point of Contact (POC):
Title of POC:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
B. CONTRACT INFORMATION:
Contract Title/Description:
Contract Number:
Task Order Number (if Applicable):
Status (i.e., On-going, complete):
Contract Amount: (Total amount of base period of performance plus any option period(s) exercised to date)
Type of Contract (e.g., FFP, Cost, etc.):
Performance Period being evaluated:
Place of Performance:
Total Number of Full Time Employees employed:
Title of Position(s) provided by the Offeror
| Was work with a: |
| Commercial_____ Fed Gov’t_____ Local/State Gov’t_____ entity. |
C. CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION:
COR’s Name:
Telephone Number:
Email:
| Evaluated Contractor Performed as: |
| Prime Contractor _______ or Sub Contractor ________ |
D. RATING INFORMATION:
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Exceptional (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal (M) |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| N/A |
| Not applicable to the subject contract or requirement |
E. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS:
Quality of Services
Performance Rating
(1) The Contractor provided quality services that adhered to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of professional conduct.
(2) The Contractor provided quality personnel that met or exceeded the required qualifications.
(3) The Contractor demonstrated an overall effective and quality management effort.
(4) The Contractor maintained an effective on-going Quality Control Plan to provide for monitoring, analyzing, and improving quality contract performance.
Please provide a rationale for your Quality of Services Rating (required for other than satisfactory rating): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Timeliness of Performance/Services
Performance Rating
(1) The Contractor successfully achieved fill-rates established by the contract.
(2) The labor turnover in personnel and other labor categories (to include contracted health care providers) was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor Performance.
(3) The Contractor consistently demonstrated an ability to quickly recruit HCPs on time to meet the Government’s needs.
(4) The Contractor demonstrated the ability to retain contractors to support contract/task order requirements so that work schedules would not be disrupted.
(5) The Contractor demonstrated the ability to plan for and provide replacement candidates to include pre-planned absences, unplanned illnesses, or an extended leave of absence.
(6) Credentialing Packages (to include current and complete information) were presented in timely fashion to the applicable facility.
Please provide a rationale for your Timeliness of Performance/Services Rating (required for other than satisfactory rating): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Business Relations
Performance Rating
(1) The Contractor had the ability to respond effectively to contract performance issues.
(2) If applicable, the Contractor acted in accordance with any “Non-Compete Clause” Terms and Conditions of the contract.
(3) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) was apprised of technical and cost issues.
(4) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective solutions to critical contract issues.
(5) The Contractor provided proactive and effective management of its subcontractors.
(6) The Contractor was able to resolve customer complaints quickly and effectively.
Please provide a rationale for your Business Relations Rating (required for other than satisfactory rating): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
F. OTHER:
(1) Was a cure notice_____; show cause notice_____; suspension of progress payments, and/or______ termination for default issued to this firm during performance of this contract? If you answered “Yes”, provide an explanation. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(2) Based upon the information you provided and using the definitions provided in the evaluation criteria above, please provide your Overall Rating:
Exceptional ______
Very Good ______
Satisfactory ______
Marginal ______
Unsatisfactory ______
COMMENTS: (ALL Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Very Good, or Exceptional Ratings require comments to support the same. Failure to provide comments may render the questionnaire void and may result in it in not being evaluated by the Government): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Evaluator:
(Digital CAC signature if possible)
Typed Name:
Title:
Date:
Thank you for your support of the Defense Health Agency's (DHA) Northeastern Markets Contracting Division (NM-CD) I appreciate your valuable time and assistance with this important acquisition!
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .