About this file

This document contains a past performance survey template and details of a related federal contract opportunity. The past performance survey template requests a separate survey be completed for each reference, to be included with any response. It asks evaluators to rate the quality of work and comment on any performance issues for the company being evaluated.

The related federal contract opportunity is a total SDVOSB set-aside issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 21. Solicitation number 36C26124Q0220 is for emergency power supply system maintenance and testing services at the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, according to the attached performance work statement. Responses are due prior to solicitation.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Equipment List.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
36C26124Q0220.docx DOCX document
Emergency Power Supply System PWS.pdf PDF
52.212-1 Addendum - Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services.docx DOCX document

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 .