ID05170010_Section_J_-_Attach_5_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Research Assistant/Associate Recruiting Services
- Solicitation number
- ID05170010
About this file
Section J-Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire
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
Attachment 5 – Past Performance Questionnaire
| U.S. General Services Administration |
| Federal Acquisition Service, Contracting Division |
Offeror:
Project Reference Company/Agency Name:
Point of Contact (POC):
POC Email Address/Telephone Number:
Project Name:
Contract Number:
Project Location:
In regard to the contract and project referenced above, please answer the following questions regarding the project criteria:
1. The contract was/is for recruiting services of scientific and engineering disciplines.
Yes |_| No |_|
2. The contract was/is with a commercial, educational or government entity.
Yes |_| No |_|
3. The contract was/is in place for the past five (5) years.
Yes |_| No |_|
4. Work performed under the awarded contract totaled at least $500,000.00 Yes |_| No |_|
**** IF RESPONSES TO CRITERIA 1-4 ABOVE ARE ALL YES, PLEASE PROCEED BELOW ****
IF ANY RESPONSES TO CRITERIA 1-4 ABOVE ARE “NO”, FEEDBACK IS COMPLETE
In reference to this project, please answer the following questions using the chart below to evaluate the offeror's performance on this project. You may rate the offeror anywhere along the scale, for example, a numerical score of 4.5. You may also use provide additional comments in the space provided.
ADJECTIVAL RATING
| NUMERICAL SCORE |
| DESCRIPTION |
| Exceptional |
| 5 |
| There are no quality issues, and the vendor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor was highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| 4 |
| There were/are no, or very minimal, quality issues, and the vendor has exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor was effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| 3 |
| There were/are no major quality issues and the vendor has effectively corrected or mitigated all problems, meeting the contract requirements with no, or minimal, increases in cost. Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor appear or were satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| 2 |
| The vendor has demonstrated that it is capable of meeting some but not all levels of performance required for successful completion of the project requirements. Marginal performance includes both minor and some major deficiencies and requires substantial correction to achieve satisfactory performance. Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the vendor has not yet identified corrective actions. The vendor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 1 |
| The vendor was/is not capable of meeting the level of performance required for successful completion of the project requirements. Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the vendor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective |
1. The vendor provided qualified candidates for the research positions required by the client.
Numerical Score:
Comments:
2. The vendor provided qualified candidates in a timely fashion, meeting the client’s required performance schedule.
Numerical Score:
Comments:
3. The vendor was able to maintain a qualified candidate base throughout the duration of the contract term.
Numerical Score:
Comments:
4. The vendor’s management staff was responsive and proactive in a resolving performance issues with the provided candidates.
Numerical Score:
Comments:
5. The firm's overall performance on the contract.
Numerical Score:
Comments:
oleObject1.bin image1.wmf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .