Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST DAY-TIME SERVICE Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HT941026Q2003
- Issued by
- Defense Health Agency
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) issued by the Defense Health Agency (DHA) Western Markets Contracting Division for evaluating a contractor's performance history. The PPQ provides a standardized rating system with six performance levels (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unacceptable, and Not Applicable) across 18 evaluation criteria including relationship management, corporate integrity, quality of work, cost control, safety compliance, and documentation submission. The form requires detailed feedback from previous project evaluators, with responses requested by December 10, 2025, and allows evaluators to provide comments on the contractor's performance and recommend future contract awards.
The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation (HT941026Q2003) for Roman Catholic Priest Day-Time Services at Naval Medical Center San Diego. The unrestricted procurement seeks a contractor to provide spiritual care to active-duty military personnel, dependents, and eligible Navy civilian employees. The acquisition uses NAICS code 813110 with a $13.0 million size standard, is subject to the Service Contract Act, and is being conducted under simplified acquisition procedures. The solicitation is a combined synopsis/Request for Quote (RFQ) with full and open competition, targeting commercial item services for the Pastoral Care Department.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PWS - Daytime Pastoral Care Services.docx | DOCX document | |
| Combined Synopsis HT941026Q2003 - NMCSD Catholic Priest Services - KO edits and comments - 18 Nov 2025.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 2
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
Defense Health Agency (DHA) Western Markets Contracting Division is considering the Offeror listed below for a U.S. Government contract. Your comments would be appreciated regarding this firm’s past performance. After completing this PPQ, you are highly encouraged to send it back to the Offeror to be submitted with their quote. However, you may return it directly to this office via email to dernell.w.wade.civ@health.mil no later than 10 Dec 2025. Your prompt response is greatly appreciated. If the referenced project is a Government project, you may forward a copy of the official performance evaluation in lieu of completing this form. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
Offeror Information
Name of Offeror Being Evaluated:
Address of Offeror Being Evaluated:
Project Information
Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number:
Contract/Project Title:
Location:
Award Date:
Completion Date:
Contract Value:
| Offeror Performed As: |
| |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub-Contractor |
Description of Work Performed:
Evaluator Information
Name of Evaluator:
Government Agency/Commercial Company:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Position Held in Relation to this Project:
Rating: Please evaluate the past performance using only the following ratings without variation.
DO NOT RATE ON A “+” OR “-” SCALE. If a “+” or “-” is used, the rating without the “+” or “-” will be applied. If the rating is Marginal or Unacceptable, please provide additional information in the appropriate block or in the remarks section of this form.
| “E” |
| Exceptional |
| Performance greatly exceeded the contract requirements. |
| “VG” |
| Very Good |
| Performance exceeded the contract requirements. |
| “S” |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance met the contract requirements. |
| “M” |
| Marginal |
| Performance met the minimum contract requirements, but some material aspects of the contractor’s performance were less than satisfactory. |
| “U” |
| Unacceptable |
| Performance was poor and/or did not satisfy contract requirements. |
| “NA” |
| Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract. |
Please rate and provide any supporting information/comments for the following:
| 1. The relationship between the Offeror and client’s/customer’s contract team: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 2. The Offeror’s management and coordination of subcontractors: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 3. Ability/actions to hire and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees for the performance of the contract work: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 4. Overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness, and cooperative conduct: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 5. Quality of work: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 6. Quality control: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 7. Ability to meet the performance schedule: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 8. Ability/actions to improve schedule problems, if applicable: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 9. Ability to control costs and provide the required work at a reasonable total price: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 10. Compliance with labor standards, as applicable: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 11. Compliance with safety standards and/or number of safety related incidents, code compliance, as applicable: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 12. Ability to submit required documentation (work schedule, reports, data, etc.) in a timely manner: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U NA
| 13. Have any cure notices, show cause letters, letter of reprimand, suspension of payment, or termination been issued? If yes, please explain: |
| |_| |_| |
Yes No
| 14. Was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from your procurement or technical personnel? If no, please explain: |
| |_| |_| |
Yes No
| 15. Would you award another contract to the party being evaluated? If no, please explain: |
| |_| |_| |
Yes No
| 16. Was the customer satisfied with the end product? If no, please explain: |
| |_| |_| |
Yes No
| 17. Has the firm being evaluated been provided an opportunity to discuss or respond to any negative comments or performance ratings? If so, what were the results? |
| |_| |_| |_| |
Yes No NA
18. Additional Remarks:
| 19. Overall rating for this firm: |
| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |
E VG S M U
Signature of Evaluator Date
PLEASE NOTE: Contractors may be advised of adverse remarks and given the opportunity to respond in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(e)(4), the names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror’s past performance shall not be disclosed.
Past Performance Questionnaire, Page 1 of 3 (Rev 11/2022)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .