PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Disaster Salvage and Recovery of NLM Collections
- Solicitation number
- 75N97024R00001
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for contractors to complete regarding disaster salvage and recovery services for the National Library of Medicine collections. The National Library of Medicine within the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, is soliciting proposals for a contractor to provide professional salvage and recovery assistance on an as-needed basis in the event of flooding or other catastrophes that put the library's collection materials at risk of damage or loss. Offerors are asked to provide information on relevant past contracts of similar size and complexity that they have performed in the past three years to support an evaluation of past performance. Completed questionnaires from references are due by March 27, 2024 and will be used to evaluate offerors for this requirement to support the library's mission of acquiring, organizing, and providing access to biomedical literature collections.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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 QUESTIONNAIRE
Disaster Salvage and Recovery of National Library of Medicine (NLM) Collections Please complete the following questionnaire and return it to Delfo Sacomizhquiri at delfo.sacomizhquiri@nih.gov NO LATER than March 27, 2024, 4:00 PM EST.
The National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes for Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released a solicitation for a contractor to acquire professional salvage and recovery assistance on an as-needed basis in the event of flooding or other catastrophe that puts collection materials at risk of damage or loss.
The NLM mission is to enable biomedical research, support health care and public health, and promote healthy behavior by: acquiring, organizing, preserving, and providing free online access to scholarly biomedical literature from around the world. To support its mission, the Library assembled one of the largest collections of biomedical literature in the world and continues to collect in some forty biomedical areas. In total, NLM collections contain approximately 30 million print and non-print items currently located on three levels of Building 38 as well as offsite storage locations.
Offerors were asked to provide information on contracts similar in size and complexity to the Disaster Salvage and Recovery requirement described above on which the Offerors have performed in the past three years. The Offeror submitted your name as a reference for past performance.
Please note your comments will be used to form the basis for evaluation of this Offeror. Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Delfo Sacomizhquiri at delfo.sacomizhquiri@nih.gov.
I. CONTRACT INFORMATION
1. Name/Address of Contractor being evaluated:
Name of Offeror:
Company/Division that performed the work (no acronyms):
Address Line 1:
Address Line 2:
List any other companies jointly performing work on this contract (include subcontractors, consultants, mentor/protégé, teaming arrangement or joint venture):
Past Performance Questionnaire
2. Is the company listed in Question #1 the primary contractor or a subcontractor? ( ) Primary ( ) Subcontractor
3. Contract number (if applicable):
4. Contract type (if applicable):
| ( ) Fixed Price | ( ) CPAF |
| ( ) Cost Reimbursement | ( ) ID/IQ |
| ( ) CPFF – Completion | ( ) BOA |
| ( ) CPFF – Term | ( ) Labor Hour |
| ( ) CPIF | ( ) T & M |
( ) Other: (Please specify)
5. Period of performance (include option years, if any):
6. Estimated contract amount (base plus options):
Base Amount: $ Option Amount: $
7. Approximate number of full-time equivalents (FTEs):
8. Project Title:
9. Brief description of services (major task areas) provided:
10. Type of Award:
| ( ) Competitive | ( ) 8(a) |
| ( ) Non-Competitive | ( ) Other: |
11. Name, title, organization, email address and phone number of the Contract Officer’s Representative (COR), and/or Contracting Officer (CO) or primary point of contact:
II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
For each question/item under the remaining Sections, please choose the adjective that best describes the contractor's work on the project. Please provide a brief explanation for all ratings on the comment line provided. If a specific question/item does not pertain to your contract, select “N/A."
In accordance with FAR 42.1503 (h) (4), please use the following chart to assess past performance and assign ratings using the adjective scale defined below:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| (a) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly |
effective.
To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
| (b) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (c) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| (d) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| (e) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
III. QUALITY AND TIMELINESS
1. Quality of services and support provided.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
2. Quality of personnel: level of knowledge, experience, and training.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
3. Timely completion of deliverables and/or milestones on tasks.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
IV. BUSINESS PRACTICES
1. Skill in effectively and efficiently recruiting and directing personnel and resources to meet project needs.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
2. Ability to utilize and manage subcontractors.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
3. Cooperation and responsiveness to inquiries from your organization’s technical and contract representatives.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
4. Adherence to target costs on the contract level and task level.
Rating: ( ) Exceptional ( ) Very Good ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Marginal ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) N/A Comment:
5. Has the contractor ever been given a cure notice, show cause notice, suspension of progress payments, letters of direction, or other written notification of unsatisfactory performance or progress?
Rating: Yes/No: ( ) Yes ( ) No Comment:
6. Have you ever terminated a contract with this Contractor, on this or any other contract?
Rating: Yes/No: ( ) Yes ( ) No Comment:
V. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. Would you recommend the Contractor for another contract award?
Rating: Yes/No: ( ) Yes ( ) No Comment:
2. Please add any other information not included above that would be beneficial for the Government to evaluate the performance of the Contractor.
Comment:
VI. CLIENT INFORMATION
The following information refers to the individual completing the questionnaire: Name:
Organization (Agency or Company): Address: Phone Number: Email:
Signature:
Title:
Date:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .