PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE_Immunoassays.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 6515--BIO-RAD QUALITY CONTROLS IMMUNOASSAYS
- Solicitation number
- 36C24923Q0614
About this file
This document is a past performance questionnaire template for a contractor providing immunoassays under solicitation number 36C24923Q0614 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 9. The questionnaire is to be completed by a reference for the offeror and submitted to the contracting officer by September 19, 2023. It requests ratings on an exceptional to marginal scale for quality of services, cost control, timeliness, ability to meet special requirements, management of subcontractors, ability to adjust in emergencies, and warranty performance. An additional narrative is provided to justify any ratings. The contracting officer's contact information is included for return of the completed questionnaire via email. Definitions of the rating categories from exceptional to marginal are also provided.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C24923Q0614_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C24923Q0614 LineItems.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
ATTACHMENT C
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
RFQ 36C249Q0614 Base plus 4 option Immunoassays
Section I is to be completed by the offeror and provided to their reference with instructions to complete Section II through IV and submit to the Contracting Officer prior to the offer due date/local time. Contractor shall submit a completed copy of section I with their quote.
SECTION I:
Contractor:
Contractor UEI #:
Contract Number:
Contract Title:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user): Contracting officer
INDEX
Section I – Contractor Section II – Ratings Section III – Additional Narrative Justification Section IV – Signature of Rater Section V – Return Instructions Section VI – Rating Definitions
| SECTION II-RATINGS |
| Select a Rating Category |
Contractor Performance
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s services provided?
Exceptional
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs?
Excellent
3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the services delivered?
Excellent
4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements?
Excellent
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?
Excellent
6. If applicable, In an emergency situation, how would you rate the contractor’s ability to adjust and continue to support the Agency requirement?
Excellent
7. How would you rate the performance of the contractor’s warranty/maintenance plan?
Excellent
8. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?
Excellent
SECTION III – Additional Supporting Narrative, if required.
Include the number of the question above to which this supporting narrative applies.
SECTION IV – Signature of Rater
Rater Name:
Date:
SECTION V – Return Instructions
Return the completed questionnaire via e-mail to: Phon.phasavath@va.gov no later than 08:00 EDT, Sept 19, 2023.
SECTION VI – Rating Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
Exceptional (E)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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 merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
Very Good
(VG)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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. |
Satisfactory (S)
| Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be 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. |
Marginal (M)
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected 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). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .