Past Performance Surveys.docx
DOCX document 13 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26123Q0512
About this file
This document includes a performance work statement and quality assurance surveillance plan for regulated medical waste removal and treatment services. Key details include that the contractor shall provide weekly pickup of biomedical hazardous waste, chemotherapy wastes, and pathological/infectious wastes from seven Department of Veterans Affairs facilities located in California and Nevada. The contractor must remove and dispose of an estimated total of 335,784 pounds of various medical waste streams annually from these locations. The performance period is for one base year with four optional one-year renewal periods. The solicitation is set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The contractor will be evaluated on meeting safety, handling, and pickup schedule requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| 36C26123Q0512_2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C26123Q0512 Medical Waste Disposal VAPAHCS.pdf |
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 Survey
OFFEROR INSTRUCTIONS: A separate survey must be completed for each reference. The completed surveys must be included with the quote.
EVALUATOR INSTRUCTIONS: The Department of Veterans Affairs is considering the company listed below for award of a VA contract. Your comments would be appreciated regarding this company’s past performance. The name of the individuals providing reference information is confidential and will not be released or made publicly available.
Name of Company being evaluated:
Evaluator’s Name:
Evaluator’s Company Name, Address and Phone number:
Indicate what contracts did this company provided for you? Provide the total contract amount, dates of performance, and contract number.
Evaluation Questions
Please rate the overall quality of work using a scale of (Excellent, Good, Fair, Marginal, Unacceptable). Comments in support of the rating are welcome.
Were there any performance issues/concerns? If so, how were they handled?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .