Past Performance Reference.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Manchester IRSC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 1282AT20R4004
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A00001 - Appendix B - REVISED___Manchester.pdf | ||
| A00001 - Appendix A - REVISED___Manchester.pdf | ||
| A00001 - Solicitation - REVISED___Manchester.docx | DOCX document | |
| A00001___Manchester.pdf | ||
| Contract Area Map___Manchester.pdf | ||
| Solicitation___Manchester.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix B___Manchester.pdf | ||
| Wage Determination - SCA - Forestry.pdf | ||
| Appendix C___Manchester.pdf | ||
| Wage Determination - SCA - Laborer.pdf | ||
| Appendix A___Manchester.pdf | ||
| Experience Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 12
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
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PROJECT Stewardship
<Header section is to be completed by the offeror and provided to the reference with instructions to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the government contact identified in section IV>
Contractor:
Contract Number:
Contract/Project Name:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user, etc.):
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/task 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/task 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). |
Unsatisfactory (U)
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits 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 report or letter. |
INDEX:
Section I – Ratings Section II – Additional Narrative Justification Section III – Signature of Rater Section IV – Return Instructions Section V – Contact Information Please provide any relevant information to support the above ratings.
<Note: When completing this questionnaire by e-mail, please do not use a color, such as red, to select the rating in Section I of this questionnaire. Color fonts do not show well when printed. Just circle it, bold it, underline it, or increase the font size in black>
SECTION I – RATINGS
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the products/services delivered?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
6. How would you rate the contractor’s performance on small business subcontracting?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
7. How would you rate the performance of the contractor’s warranty/maintenance?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
8. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?
Supporting narrative <see above criteria>:
E VG S M U N/A
SECTION II – ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION
If required: <Include the number of the question to which this supporting narrative applies>
SECTION III – SIGNATURE OF RATER
<Signature not required if sent via e-mail directly from rater to the government contact identified in Section IV> Signature of Rater: _______________________________________ Date:
SECTION IV – RETURN INSTRUCTIONS
Return the completed questionnaire via e-mail to: brooke.barker@usda.gov Please return the completed questionnaire by Monday, July 13, 2020 @ 4:00 PM Mountain Time
SECTION V – CONTACT INFORMATION
For any questions pertaining to the questionnaire, please contact: brooke.barker@usda.gov
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .