Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 118 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Genetically Modified Knockin and Knockout Mice
- Solicitation number
- NIHAO2009025
About this file
Customer Survey Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 025responsestoquestions2.pdf | ||
| SOWtable1.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 025responsestoquestions1.pdf | ||
| NIHAO2009025.pdf |
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
National Institutes of Health
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
RFP CUSTOMER SURVEY
Please complete the following questionnaire and return via email to Alexander Kramer at kramera@niaid.nih.gov.
Surveys must reach the Contracting Office by January 13, 2009
This survey pertains to the company:
Date of Survey:
Name of Person completing survey:
Your company/Agency:
Contract Number(s):
Your role in this contract:
Contracting Officer
Contract Specialist
Project Officer
Other : ______________________
Contract Award Date:
Contract Expiration Date:
Contract Value including all option and option periods:
Type of Contract:
Approximate percentage of work being performed (or completed) by subcontractor(s): ______%
Subcontracting company names with Program Manager and phone numbers
General description of products/services required under the contract:
Rating Guidelines - Answers may be indicated with a ( or (.
Quality of Product or Service
0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent 5 = Outstanding
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.
Poor
Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Fair
Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Good
There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.
Excellent
There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government.
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. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Compliance with contract requirements |
| 2 |
| Accuracy of Reports |
| 3 |
| Effectiveness of personnel |
| 4 |
| Technical excellence |
Cost Control
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.
Poor
Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Fair
Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Good
There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.
Excellent
There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government.
Outstanding
The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level. 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".
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Record of forecasting and controlling target costs |
| 2 |
| Current accurate and complete billings |
| 3 |
| Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals |
| 4 |
| Cost efficiencies |
Timeliness of Performance
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.
| Poor |
| Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Fair |
| Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Good |
| There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Excellent |
| There are no delays and the contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule |
| Outstanding |
| The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent". |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Met interim milestones |
| 2 |
| Reliability |
| 3 |
| Responsive to technical direction |
| 4 |
| Completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration |
| 5 |
| Met delivery schedules |
| 6 |
| No liquidated damages assessed |
Business Relations
Unsatisfactory
Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues are not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards.
Poor
Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues are marginally effective.
Good
Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues are consistently effective.
Excellent
Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceed Government expectation
Outstanding
The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent"
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Effective management, including subcontracts |
| 2 |
| Reasonable/Cooperative behavior |
| 3 |
| Responsive to contract requirements |
| 4 |
| Notification of problems |
| 5 |
| Flexibility |
| 6 |
| Pro-active vs. reactive |
| 7 |
| Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
| Yes (5) |
| No (1) |
The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction.
Would you select this firm again?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PAGE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .