I.B.08 ATTACHMENT A - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).docx

DOCX document 23 KB Posted

Attached to
Technical and Programmatic Support Services (TPSS) MATOC Generation 2 Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
W912DY20R0088
Issued by
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Support Center Huntsville

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire template and details of a federal contract opportunity for Technical and Programmatic Support Services.

The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by both an offeror and their client reference. It requests information on the quality, cost controls, timeliness and effectiveness of the offeror's past performance on contracts. It also asks for ratings on performance areas and an overall assessment of the offeror.

The federal contract opportunity is a solicitation for Technical and Programmatic Support Services issued by the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville. The requirement includes quality oversight, cybersecurity project management, cybersecurity implementation criteria development, and facility systems inventories for the Department of Defense and other agencies domestically and internationally. The multiple award task order contracts to be awarded will have a total capacity of $49 million over a three year base period and one year option. Proposals are due in February 2021.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 13

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 RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Completed PPQs should be submitted directly from the client to the Government at TPSS mailbox: CEHNC-TPSS@usace.army.mil prior to the solicitation closing date. Rows can be expanded to add information; otherwise do not alter this form. No hand-written responses.

This section is to be completed by the Offeror prior to sending to Client for completion.

Solicitation Number
W912DY -

Solicitation Closing Date

Company/Agency Name

Point of Contact Name

Address

Email Address

Telephone Number

Date Sent to Client

Name of Person Sent To

This section to be completed by the Client ONLY.

Name of Person Completing Form

Title

Contract Title

Contract Number

Project Description

Contract Type/Cost

Award Date

Original Contract Price

Final Contract Price

Explain Difference

Percentage of Work Performed by Contractor

Roles and Responsibilities as Sub or Prime

Expected Completion Date

Actual Completion Date

Explain Differences

1. Quality of Work:

a) How was the contractor’s compliance with applicable safety standards to protect personnel and company/agency resources?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

b) How was the contractor’s compliance with applicable labor standards?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

c) Was the contractor’s effort in Quality Control successful in ensuring quality workmanship on your project?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

d) Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

e) Overall rating for Quality of Work Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

2. Cost Controls:

a) Did the Contractor perform the required services at the contract price without adverse effect on performance?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

b) Did the contractor submit a fair and reasonable proposal when requested to perform additional work?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

c) If this contract is an indefinite delivery type contract (e.g., Multiple Award Environmental Contract, Task Order Contract, etc.), has the Contractor submitted competitive quotes on the individual orders issued under this contract?

Yes No N/A

d) Overall rating for Cost Controls Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

3. Timeliness of Performance:

a) Was the contractor timely in submitting schedules, reports, billings and other contract submittals?

Always Usually Sometimes Never N/A

b) Was the contractor timely in responding to requests for proposals for additional work?

Always Usually Sometimes Never N/A

c) Did the contractor complete the contract on time taking into account all excusable delays?

Yes No N/A

d) Was the contractor assessed any liquidated damages or deductions for late or nonperformance of required work? If yes, please explain.

Yes No

e) Did the contractor exceed contractual requirements in relation to Timeliness of Performance in a way that was deemed beneficial to your agency?

Yes No N/A

If you answered No, indicate your reason by checking one of the following: Contractor met the requirements, but did not exceed them Did not meet some of the requirements Did not meet requirements and recovery is not likely

f) Overall rating for Timeliness of Performance Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

4. Effectiveness of Management:

a) Did the contractor award subcontracts in a timely manner and properly manage them?

Always Usually Sometimes Never N/A

b) If applicable, did the contractor meet its small, small disadvantaged and women-owned business participation goals?

Yes No N/A

c) How would you rate the management of this firm as it relates to the completion of your contract and to the qualifications of its on-site personnel. Please explain.

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent

d) Describe the performance of the following personnel (if applicable)

1. Program Manger
U
M
S
VG
E
2. Project Manager
U
M
S
VG
E
3. Engineering/Technical
U
M
S
VG
E
4. Quality Control Manager
U
M
S
VG
E
5. Safety Officer
U
M
S
VG
E
6. Superintendent
U
M
S
VG
E

5. Customer Satisfaction:

a) Did the Contractor show reasonable and cooperative behavior and attention to customer satisfaction? Yes No N/A If you answered NO, please explain why:

6. Overall Rating of Contractor:

In summary, which of the following would you choose to best describe the overall quality of this firm’s past performance?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Excellent The information in this Questionnaire may be verified by Personnel from the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .