Amend3_Attachment23_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.pdf
PDF 147 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NIH CC Patient Call Communication System
- Solicitation number
- NIHCL2017072
About this file
Amendment 3 - Attachment 23 - 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
RFP No. NIHCL2017072
NIH CC Patient Call Communication System
Attachment No. 23
Past Performance Questionnaire
(To be completed by Contractor’s client/customer)
INSTRUCTIONS:
The questions contained below are to be used to evaluate the performance record of a contractor submitting a proposal in response to RFP No. NIHCL2017072 issued by the National Institutes of
Health Clinical Center.
Please complete this performance questionnaire and return via e-mail to:
Rieka Plugge, Contract Specialist
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
Office of Acquisitions
E-mail: rieka.plugge@nih.gov
Before June 13, 2017. Your responses to this questionnaire will be considered confidential, except as explained below. Responses returned by contractors will not be used in the performance evaluation. For the purposes of this survey, “Contractor” refers to the specific contractor that requested you to provide this information to the Government.
For each of the following areas, rate the performance of the Contractor as (5) Outstanding; (4)
Excellent; (3) Good; (2) Fair; (1) Poor; (0) Unsatisfactory; or (N/A) Not Applicable. Indicate your rating by circling the appropriate number.
Include a narrative explanation whenever you feel that it is appropriate, but as a minimum when a rating of “Unsatisfactory” is given. Please note that if an “Unsatisfactory” rating is given, the contractor will be made aware of it and will be asked to comment.
mailto:rieka.plugge@nih.gov
This survey pertains to: _________________________________________________________
Department/Component: _______________________________________________________
Award Number: _______________________________________________________________
Date of Survey: ________________________________________________________________
Name of Person Completing Survey: ______________________________________________
Your Company/Agency: ________________________________________________________
Your Role in this Award (circle one):
Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Project Officer Other
Contract Value (including options if applicable): $___________________________________
Performance Period (including options if applicable): ________________________________
Type of Contract: ______________________________________________________________
Please provide applicable subcontractor(s) information.
1. Subcontractor: __________________________________________________________
Program Manager/Phone: _________________________________________________
2. Subcontractor: __________________________________________________________
3. Subcontractor: __________________________________________________________
4. Subcontractor: __________________________________________________________
General description of products/services required under the contract:
RATINGS
Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Commentary to support rating shall be noted on page 4.
Assign each area a rating of 0 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), 3 (Good), 4 (Excellent), or 5 (Outstanding).
Use the attached Rating Guidelines as guidance in making these evaluations. Circle the appropriate rating. If you do not have enough personal knowledge or feedback from internal customers who directly received products and services from the contractor to make a determination on any of the performance criteria below, please circle
"N/A" (not applicable/no opinion).
QUALITY OF SERVICE (WAS ORDER RECEIVED PROMPTLY AND COMPLETE)
1. Compliance with contract requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
2. Accuracy of reports 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
3. Effectiveness of personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
4. Technical Excellence 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
TIMELINESS OF DELIVERY
1. Met interim milestones 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
2. Reliability 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
3. Responsive to technical direction 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
4. Completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration
0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
5. Met delivery schedules 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
6. Timely, current & complete reporting, tracking & documentation
0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
BUSINESS RELATIONS
1. Effective management 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
2. Reasonable/cooperative behavior 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
3. Responsive to requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
4. Notification of problems 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
5. Flexibility 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
6. Pro-active vs. reactive 0 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction. Yes No
2. Would you recommend selection of this firm again? Yes No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Rating Guidelines
QUALITY OF PRODUCT
OR SERVICE
TIMELINESS OF
PERFORMANCE
BUSINESS
RELATIONS
0-Unsatisfactory
Contractor is not in compliance and is jeopardizing achievement of contract objectives
Contractor delays are jeopardizing performance of contract objectives
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is not effective
1-Poor
Major problems have been encountered
Contractor is having major difficulty meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/ marginally effective
2-Fair
Some problems have been encountered
Contractor is having some problems meeting
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/ somewhat effective
3-Good
Minor inefficiencies/ errors have been identified
Contractor is usually effective in meeting service/ usually effective
4-Excellent
Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and/or delivers quality products/services
Contractor is effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule service/ effective
Signature: ______________________ Organization: ________________
Name/Title: __________________________ Date: ___________________
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .