Attachment_6_Past_Performance_sheet.docx
DOCX document 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NPS PFMD Traffic Count Database Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- P15PS02901
About this file
Past Performance Reference Sheet
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF_30_Amendment_003.pdf | ||
| SF_30_Amendment_002.pdf | ||
| SF_30_Amendment_001.pdf | ||
| P15PS02901_SF-1449.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_Traffic_Database_GPAT.doc | DOC document | |
| RFQ_P15PS02901.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachments_1_through_4.docx | DOCX document |
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 6
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE SHEETS (To be removed at time of award)
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THIS FORM:
1. CONTRACT DESCRIPTION – All information requested
2. REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION –All information requested
CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:
Contract Number:
Contract Type:
Award Amount:
Period of Performance:
Brief description of services provided by the offeror:
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Reference: _______________________________________________________ Organization: ____________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ___________________FAX________________ Email__________________
THE GOVERNMENT WILL CONTACT EACH REFERENCE IDENTIFIED AND COMPLETE THE INFORMAION REQUESTED BELOW.
RATING TABLE
| 1. | Poor: The Contractor lacked a basic understanding of the work and the capacity to fulfill the requirements. Contractor’s performance was inadequate and contract requirements were often not met. |
| 2. | Moderate: The Contractor satisfactorily performed the services with some minor discrepancies. Overall performance was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. |
| 3. | Good: The Contractor consistently met general contract requirements and understood customer needs. The Contractor’s performance was thorough, comprehensive, and more than satisfactory. There is no history of practices or processes that were detrimental to the customer. |
| 4. | Superior: The Contractor demonstrated exceptional performance and innovative practices and/or processes. The Contractor’s efficiency, productivity, and product enhancements lead to real cost savings and efficiencies for the customer. The Contractor consistently exceeded customer needs. |
| 5. | Not Applicable: Does not apply |
QUALITY OF SERVICES
1. DID THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDE QUALITY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
2. WAS THE CONTRACTOR COOPERATIVE AND RESPONSIVE TO CHANGING NEEDS OF THE CUSTOMER?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
3. DID THE OFFEROR, TEAM OR SUBCONTRACT ANY PART OF YOUR EFFORT TO ANOTHER FIRM FOR COMPLETION? IF APPLICABLE, HOW WELL WAS THIS RELATIONSHIP MANAGED?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
DELIVERY/COMPLETION
1. WERE THE CONTRACT/TASK DELIVERABLES COMPLETED ON TIME?
Strengths:
2. WERE THERE INSTANCES OF REQUIRED RE-WORK? WAS UNNECESSARY REWORK CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR GOVERNMENT?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
COST CONTROL
1. DID THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDE SERVICES AT OR BELOW THEIR INITIALLY PROPOSED COSTS?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS
2. DID THE CONTRACTOR ISOLATE PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS AND TAKE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT ACTION TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS?
Strengths:
3. DID THE CONTRACTOR SAVE/COST THE GOVERNMENT MONEY OR PROVIDE OTHER BENEFITS (S) AS A RESULT OF INNOVATIVE WORK APPLICATIONS OR LACK THEREOF?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 N/A
CONTRACTORS OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Please rate the contractors overall performance under this contract: 1 2 3 4 Comments:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .