Final_Attachment_4_Past_Performance_Survey_Form.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Environmental, Social and Resettlement Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- MCC-13-RFP-0082
- Issued by
- Millennium Challenge Corporation
About this file
Attachment 4 - Customer Past Performance Survey Form
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| MCC-13-RFP-0082_0002.pdf | ||
| Fully_Executed_AMENDMENT_0001.pdf | ||
| Version_to_be_Posted_5.11.13_Versiion_1.pdf | ||
| Final_Attachment_2_Proposed_Rates.docx | DOCX document | |
| Final_Attachment_3_Travel_Reimbursement.pdf | ||
| Final_Attachment_1_SF_1449.pdf |
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
ATTACHMENT 4
Customer Past Performance Survey Form Millennium Challenge Corporation
Evaluating Customer / Organization:
Address:
Point of Contact Name:
Telephone or email:
| Contract Number: |
| Order Number: |
| Contractor Name: |
| Contractor Address: |
| DUNS (if known): |
| City: |
| State: |
Additional or Alternate Contractor Name:
| Zip/Postal Code: |
| Country: |
Contract Type:
| Contract Award Date: |
| Contract Expiration Date: |
| Contract Value: $ |
Service or Product / Requirement Description:
Ratings - Summarize contractor performance and check the number which corresponds to the rating for each rating category (See attached Rating Guidelines).
(1) Quality of Product or Service _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Customer Comments for Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum):
(2) Cost Control (Rating and Comments for Cost Control are not required if contract type is Fixed-Price) _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Customer Comments for Cost Control (2000 characters maximum):
(3) Timeliness of Performance _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Customer Comments for Timeliness of Performance (2000 characters maximum):
(4) Business Relations _0=Unsatisfactory _1=Poor _2=Fair _3=Good _4=Excellent _5=Outstanding
Customer Comments for Business Relations (2000 characters maximum):
Overall Past Performance Rating (four ratings, equally weighted, combined) = # / Overall Adjective Rating
Additional Info Subcontracts
Are subcontracts involved? __Yes __No (Check one) Customer Comment on subcontracts (2000 characters maximum):
Customer Satisfaction
Is/was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? _Yes _No (Check one)
Would you recommend the selection of this firm again? _Yes _No (Check one)
Customer Comments on Customer Satisfaction (2000 characters maximum):
Contractor Comments / Rebuttal (if any ratings are “adverse”)
Quality of Product of Service
___Contractor has elected not to comment
Contractor Comments for Quality of Product of Service (2000 characters maximum):
Cost Control
Contractor Comments for Quality of Product of Service (2000 characters maximum):
Timeliness of Performance
Contractor Comments for Timeliness of Performance (2000 characters maximum):
Business Relations
Contractor Comments for Business Relations (2000 characters maximum):
Rating Guidelines:
Quality of Product or Service
| 0 = Unsatisfactory |
| Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements. |
| 1 = Poor |
| Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 2 = Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 3 = Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| 4 = Excellent |
| There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government. |
| 5 = Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Cost Control
| 0 = Unsatisfactory |
| Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| 1 = Poor |
| Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 2 = Fair |
| Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 3 = Good |
| There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements. |
| 4 = Excellent |
| There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government. |
| 5 = Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the contractor achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Timeliness of Performance
| 0 = Unsatisfactory |
| Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. |
| 1 = Poor |
| Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 2 = Fair |
| Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| 3 = Good |
| There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| 4 = Excellent |
| There are no delays and the contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule. |
| 5 = Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Business Relations
| 0 = Unsatisfactory |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards. |
| 1 = Poor |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective. |
| 2 = Fair |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective. |
| 3 = Good |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is consistently effective. |
| 4 = Excellent |
| Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeds Government expectation. |
| 5 = Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
Page | 2 MCC-13-RFP-0019, A-E Power Sector Due Diligence and Project Appraisal
MCC-13-RFP-0082
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .