Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C78626Q50019
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the Willamette National Cemetery Grounds Maintenance Services solicitation (36C78626Q50019) issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. The PPQ provides a detailed template for evaluating a contractor's past performance, with specific focus on grounds maintenance services. The form requires reference contacts to rate performance across five key criteria: quality of work, timeliness, responsiveness, safety compliance, and customer satisfaction, with ratings ranging from Excellent to Unsatisfactory.
The document includes comprehensive relevancy definitions for past performance evaluation, categorizing previous work as Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant based on specific metrics including scope, size, and complexity. For this solicitation, very relevant performance would involve maintaining 220-360 acres of grounds, particularly at national cemeteries or high-visibility federal sites, with services including turf and grass maintenance, marker edging, tree/shrub planting, debris removal, mowing, pesticide application, and fertilizer supply. The evaluation methodology emphasizes the contractor's ability to manage multiple service elements and comply with strict federal regulatory standards.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C78626Q50019 0004 RFQ Amendment.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C78626Q50019 Amend 0004 Continuation page.doc | DOC document | |
| 36C78626Q50019 Amend 0003 Continuation page.doc | DOC document | |
| 36C78626Q50019 0003 RFQ Amendment.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C78626Q50019 0002 RFQ Amendment.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amend 0002 Clarifications.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amend 0001 36C78626Q50019 Questions Answers UPDATED.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amend 0001 36C78626Q50019 Questions Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C78626Q50019 0001.pdf | ||
| Amend 0001 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET.pdf | ||
| RFQ_Addendum_Submission Instructions_ Evaluation.docx | DOCX document | |
| Administative Guidance for Offerors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Dignity Clause.docx | DOCX document | |
| Performance Work Statement WNC Grounds Mx.docx | DOCX document | |
| Contract Guaranteed Minimum and Maximum Value.docx | DOCX document | |
| PWS Attachments.pdf | ||
| 36C78626Q50019 WIllamette National Cemetery Grounds Maintenance.pdf |
Show all 17
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 (PPQ)
Instructions to Customer / Reference: 36C78626Q50019
The offeror listed below has identified your organization as a reference for work performed under a contract or task order within the last three (3) years. Please provide the requested information to the best of your knowledge. Your responses will be used by the Government to evaluate the offeror’s past performance for relevance, recency, and quality of performance.
Offeror Name:
Project / Contract Name:
Contract Number:
Customer / Agency Name:
Reference Contact Name / Title:
Phone / Email:
1. Contract Information
Contract Type (e.g., FFP, T&M, CPFF):
Contract Value (initial / final if different):
Period of Performance (Start – End Date):
Scope / Description of Work Performed:
Offeror’s Role (Prime / Sub / JV / Other):
Size / Complexity (Number of FTEs, locations, acres, or other relevant metrics):
2. Performance Assessment
Please rate the offeror’s performance using the following criteria:
| Criteria |
| Rating |
Comments / Examples
| Quality of Work / PWS compliance |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Timeliness / Schedule Adherence |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Responsiveness / Communication |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Safety Compliance / Environmental Compliance |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Customer Satisfaction / Professionalism |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
3. Relevance
· How similar was this contract to the current requirement?
☐ Very Relevant – Scope, size, and complexity essentially the same ☐ Relevant – Somewhat smaller or less complex, but similar tasks ☐ Somewhat Relevant – Limited similarity ☐ Not Relevant – Little or no similarity
4. Additional Comments
Please provide any additional observations regarding the offeror’s ability to perform similar work successfully:
Signature / Date: ___________________________
RELVANCY DEFINITIONS
| Very Relevant | |
| Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, size, and complexity as this requirement. | |
| • | Scope: Included all major services required by this PWS turf and grass maintenance, flat marker edging, tree/shrub planting and bed maintenance, leaf and debris removal, push mowing, pesticide/herbicide application, and grass seed/fertilizer supply. |
| • | Size: Maintained grounds of approximately 220–360 acres total, with at least 175+ developed acres and flat marker areas of 100,000 or more. |
| • | Complexity: Performed at a National Cemetery, military cemetery, or other high-visibility federal or institutional site with strict appearance standards equivalent to “national shrine” conditions. |
| • | Demonstrated the ability to manage multiple concurrent service elements, frequent inspections, and compliance with federal safety and environmental regulations. |
| Relevant | |
| Past performance effort involved similar scope and complexity, but may have been somewhat smaller in overall size or number of service elements. | |
| • | Scope: Included most major services in this PWS (e.g., mowing, edging, bed maintenance, leaf removal, pesticide applications). |
| • | Size: Maintained grounds of approximately 100–219 developed acres or multiple smaller sites totaling a similar area, and/or maintained 50,000–99,999 flat markers. |
| • | Complexity: Demonstrated ability to meet appearance and scheduling standards at large, visible sites such as state veterans cemeteries, universities, or municipal park systems. |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Past performance effort included some of the scope or complexity, but was limited in acreage, service variety, or oversight requirements. |
| • | Scope: Provided partial services such as mowing and edging but limited or no tree/shrub, pesticide, or fertilizer work. |
| • | Size: Maintained 25–99 acres, or performed smaller-scale commercial, residential, or institutional landscaping. |
| • | Complexity: Limited quality control or inspection standards; minimal coordination with government representatives. |
| Not Relevant | |
| Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, size, or complexity of this requirement. | |
| • | Services unrelated to grounds maintenance (e.g., janitorial, construction, snow removal, or small-lot landscaping). |
| • | Maintained less than 25 acres and did not include comparable performance oversight or appearance requirements. |
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. 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. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum 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. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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.
A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
| (U) 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an |
unsatisfactory rating.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .