PPQ - Past Perfromance Questionnaire.pdf

FA489721R0004 Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation Rangeland Maintenance Services RMS

When Filled In This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive Information IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

Past & Present Performance Questionnaire

Subject: Request for Past Performance Evaluation

Offeror Being Evaluated:

TO:

You have been identified as a point of contact for a past performance evaluation of the firm listed on the attached questionnaire. This firm is currently being considered for the Rangeland Maintenance Services contract at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. In order for this questionnaire to be valid for solicitation evaluation purposes, it must be sent/received directly from the person/company responding to this request to the 366 FAS (Contracting) Squadron identified below. Your prompt attention to this questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this request, I can be contacted at (208) 828-9080.

Please return the completed questionnaire via email to the Contracting Officer, TSgt Daniel Parks at daniel.parks.2@us.af.mil. Phone: (208) 828-9080.

TSGT DANIEL PARKS

Contracting Officer

Attachment:

1. Past & Present Performance Questionnaire mailto:daniel.parks.2@us.af.mil

Past & Present Performance Questionnaire

1. Your Company (RESPONDENT) Information.

Name of Company / Agency:

Name of Individual:

Phone:

Email:

2. Contract / Requirement Information.

Contract # (If Applicable):

Name / Description of Contract:

Dollar Value:

Dates / Period of Performance: Start: End: Total time (yrs/months):

Was this company a Prime Contractor Sub-contractor Key/specific Personnel Only

3. Description / Scope of Work Performed. Please explain/ describe the work/services provided, and/or list the key trades / specific duty tasks that were accomplished. Key tasks, size/quantity, frequency?

4. Performance Evaluation Ratings.

Please provide / select an appropriate rating based on how well the requesting company performed services/tasks for your requirement which they were hired. A description of ratings is below (last page) as a reference. You may also provide a description to explain performance. You may provide comments indicating work that exceeded, just met standards, or any issues/problems that occurred, as well as if the contractor possibly corrected past issues.

QUALITY: OVERALL RATING:

Comments regarding quality of work and how well the contractor met the requirements:

SCHEDULE: OVERALL RATING:

Comments regarding contractor's ability to deliver/perform work on time:

MANAGEMENT: OVERALL RATING:

Comments regarding contractor's overall management and supervision in performing the contract requirement. This may also include management of key personnel. Business Relationships - How well did the Contractor communicate, and work with the government/your company:

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: OVERALL RATING:

Comments regarding contractor's compliance with contract clauses, legal/state regulatory compliance requirements, and quality control:

OTHER AREAS / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Any other key, unique, or specific aspects/areas regarding this requirement? – If not you may leave blank or discuss any other relevant performance information:

Please Email this document directly to TSgt Dan Parks at: daniel.parks.2@us.af.mil or call (208) 828-9080.

mailto:daniel.parks.2@us.af.mil

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION:

For assessment purposes, please use the following ratings and definitions:

Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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.

Very Good – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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.

Satisfactory – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.