Attachment 17 - RFP_Past performance questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Food Services for NIH Bethesda Campus
- Solicitation number
- NIHOD2015049
About this file
Past Performance Survey
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
NIH CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE RFP CUSTOMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Please complete the following questionnaire and return via regular mail or fax to the attention of:
O. Joy Ajao, Contract Specialist by: not later than 5 calendar days from the date of submission of your proposal (Name) (Date)
6011 Executive Blvd, Room 629D, Rockville, MD (Address)
(Fax Number) Phone # E-Mail 301-443-5655 ajaooj@mail.nih.gov
This survey pertains to: Food Services for NIH Bethesda (NIHOD2015049) ____________________________
Offeror/Vendor Name: __________________________
Contract Number: _______ Contract Title: _________ _______________
Name of Person Completing Survey: ________________________________ _____________________________
Signature of Person Completing Survey: _______________________ Date of Survey:
Your Company/Agency: _____________________________________________
Your Role in this Contract (circle one):
Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Project Officer Other
Contract Value (including options): $ ___________________________________
Performance Period: ____________________________ (including option periods)
Type of Contract: _________________________________________________
Approximate percentage of work being performed (or completed) by subcontractor(s): %
Information on subcontractor(s) (where more than % of work was completed by the subcontractor):
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
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
| 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 |
COST CONTROL
| 1. | Record of forecasting and controlling target costs | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 2. | Current, accurate and complete billings | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 3. | Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 4. | Cost efficiencies | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| 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. Liquidated damages assessed: Yes No (circle one)
BUSINESS RELATIONS
| 1. | Effective management, including management of subcontracts | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 2. | Reasonable/cooperative behavior | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 3. | Responsive to contract 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 |
| 7. | Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction.
Yes No (circle one)
2. Would you recommend selection of this firm again?
Yes No (circle one)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
(Attachment 17)
PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
NIH CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE RFP CUSTOMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Rating Guidelines
QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE
COST CONTROL
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
BUSINESS RELATIONS
0-Unsatisfactory
Contractor is not in compliance and is jeopardizing achievement of contract objectives
Contractor is unable to manage costs effectively
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 managing costs effectively
Contractor is having major difficulty meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is marginally effective
2-Fair
Some problems have been encountered
Contractor is having some problems managing costs effectively
Contractor is having some problems meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is somewhat effective
3-Good
Minor inefficiencies/ errors have been identified
Contractor is usually effective in managing costs
Contractor is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Response to inquiries, technical/ administrative issues is usually effective
4-Excellent
Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and/or delivers quality products/services
Contractor is effective in managing costs and submits current, accurate, and complete billings
Contractor is effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule
Response to inquiries, technical/ administrative issues is effective
5-Outstanding: The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level in any of the above four categories that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .