Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 151 KB Posted

Attached to
W065--Solicitation Ohio Durable Medical Equipment (DME)
Solicitation number
36C25023R0032
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluating a contractor's performance on a previous Durable Medical Equipment (DME) delivery contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 10. Key details include:

  • The contractor is being evaluated on its performance maintaining accurate data and compliance with medical records security, workload reporting, and computer/communications requirements. Evaluators are asked to rate the contractor's performance on quality control, management of personnel and service quality, timeliness of patient scheduling, and resolution of customer complaints.

  • The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation for DME delivery, storage, and maintenance services for the state of Ohio and surrounding catchment area over a one year base period and four option years. The soliciting agency is the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 10.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
36C25023R0032 0008.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0007.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0006.docx DOCX document
P09- PWS (FINAL).docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0005.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0004.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0003.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0002.docx DOCX document
36C25023R0032 0001.docx DOCX document
S02 - 36C25023R0032_01232023.docx DOCX document
P07 - Columbiana WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Ashland Ashtabula Erie Huron Wayne WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Crawford Holmes Knox Marion WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Allen WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Auglaize Hancock Hardin Mercer Putnam Van Wert WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Lawrence WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Jefferson WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Richland WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Union WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Champaign Darke Logan Preble Shelby WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Coshocton Guernsey Muskingum WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Franklin WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Carroll WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Mahoning Trumbull WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Ripley Switzerland WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Harrison Tuscarawas WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Decatur Fayette Fountain Henry Montgomery Parke Rush Warren WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Clinton WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Ottawa Sandusky Seneca WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Greene Miami Montgomery WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Stark WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Monroe Morgan Noble Washington WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Portage Summit WD.pdf PDF
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan - QASP.pdf PDF
P07 - Fayette WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Delaware Fairfield Franklin Licking Madison Morrow Perry Pickaway Union WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Owen WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Mercer WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Cuyahoga Geauga Lake Lorain Medina WD.pdf PDF
P07 - Clark WD.pdf PDF
Show all 40

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

D.1 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

MESSAGE TO THE EVALUATOR: Your assistance is requested by Christopher Callihan, Contract Specialist, to assist with establishing the performance history for the Company (Offeror) named below. In efforts to expedite receipt of the requested information, the Contract Specialist respectively requests you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please email the complete past performance questionnaire(s) to: Christopher.Callihan@va.gov. If enough space is not provided, please attach additional information to this questionnaire.

PAST – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Part I

a. Contractor:

b. Contract number:

c. Contract type:

d. Was this a competitive contract? Yes ___________ No ________

e. Period of performance:

f. Initial contract price: $____________________________

g. Current/final contract price: $____________________________

CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

a. Customer or agency name:

b. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

c. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other commands:

EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

a. Evaluator’s name:

b. Evaluator’s title:

c. Evaluator’s phone/fax number:

d. Number of year’s evaluator worked on subject contract:

mailto:Christopher.Callihan@va.gov

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION Page 2 of 4

Part II Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by circling the appropriate number using the scale provided. This scale is defined as follows:

Performance Assessment

Rating Description

Outstanding (O) / High Confidence

(HC)

The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many requirements to the client’s/agency’s benefit.

The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were highly effective.

Acceptable (A) / Confidence (C)

The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some requirements to the client’s/agency’s benefit.

The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were effective.

Marginal (M) / Little Confidence

(LC)

The Offeror’s performance somewhat met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained problems for which corrective action was taken by the offer and the actions appeared to be resolved marginally.

Unacceptable (U) / No Confidence

(NC)

Performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual requirements reflected a serious problem for which the offeror has yet to identify corrective actions or the offeror proposed actions that were not fully implemented.

PERFORMANCE

P1. Contractor maintained accurate data, and provided compliance with procedure coding, medical records security and workload reporting. U M A O

P2. Contractor provided necessary compliance with computer/communications compliance to meet contract requirements U M A O

Provide any explanation you may feel is required to clarify any of the above responses:

QUALITY

Q1. Contractor had an effective quality control program to ensure contract compliance.

U M A O

Q2. Contractor demonstrated ability to identify and correct weaknesses in management (relative to contract personnel (quantity and/or quality) and quality of service.

U M A O

Q3. Contractor demonstrated ability to correct deficiencies in contract performance.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION Page 3 of 4

Provide any explanation you may feel is required to clarify any of the above responses. Provide additional sheets as required:

SCHEDULE

S1. Timeliness/effectiveness of patient scheduling without extensive customer guidance.

U M A O Provide any explanation you may feel is required to clarify any of the above responses. Provide additional sheets as required:

MANAGEMENT

M1. Contractor provided experienced/qualified management personnel to meet contract requirements U M A O

M2. Contractor provided experienced/qualified staff to meet requirements.

M3. Contractor resolved customer complaints timely U M A O

Part III Narrative Summary

a. What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?

b. What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

c. Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

d. Are there any other issues not covered you feel important to note about performance of this contractor?

Part IV

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION Page 4 of 4

Government contracts only: Has/was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes ____ Default ____ Convenience _____ Pending Terminations ____ NO ____ If yes, explain (e.g., inability to meet price, performance, or delivery schedules, etc.)

Considering all the information provided above, please rate the contractor’s performance overall.

Evaluator’s Signature Date

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .