Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- QSE--36C78626Q50012
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for a federal contract opportunity for Irrigation System Management Services at Willamette National Cemetery. The solicitation (36C78626Q50012) is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside under NAICS code 221310 with a $41 million small business size standard, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. The contract will be a firm-fixed price with a base year and four option periods, requiring the contractor to provide personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and non-personal services for comprehensive irrigation management.
The questionnaire is designed to evaluate a potential contractor's past performance across multiple criteria including quality of work, timeliness, responsiveness, safety compliance, and customer satisfaction. Evaluators will rate performance using a four-tier system (Exceptional, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) and examine the contractor's ability to meet contractual requirements and effectively manage project challenges. Contractors must be registered and active in the System for Award Management (SAM) to be eligible for award, and all quotes and documents must be submitted electronically through SAM.gov.
View the file
Other files
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 Questionnaire (PPQ) Solicitation: 36C78626Q50012 Irrigation System Management Services at Willamette National Cemetery
The offeror listed below has identified your organization as a reference for work performed under a contract or task order within the last three (3) years. Please provide the requested information to the best of your knowledge. Your responses will be used by the Government to evaluate the offeror’s past performance for relevance, recency, and quality of performance.
Contract Information (Contractor to complete sections 1-4)
1. Contract Information Firm Name:
Address:
Phone Number
Email Address
Point of Contact
UEI Number/Cage Code
2. Worked Performed as:
Prime Contractor/Subcontractor/ Joint Venture/ other
Percent of project work performed
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #)
3. Contract Information:
Contract Number
Contract Type (Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursement)
Contract Title
Contract Location
Award Date (mm/dd/yy) Contract completion date (mm/dd/yy) Actual Completion (mm/dd/yy) Explain differences
Original Contract Price (award Amount) Final Contract Price Explain differences
4. Provide Project Description (how is this project relevant to the project of submission? (Please provide detail such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
Complexity of work ___High___ Medium__ Routine
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete sections 5-8)
5. Client Information
Name
Title
Phone Number
Email Address
6. Describe the Client’s role in the project:
7. Provide the ratings below for worked performed.
| Criteria |
| Rating |
Comments / Examples
| Quality of Work / PWS compliance |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Timeliness / Schedule Adherence |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Responsiveness / Communication |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Safety Compliance / Environmental Compliance |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
| Customer Satisfaction / Professionalism |
| Excellent / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory |
8. Additional Comments Please provide any additional observations regarding the offeror’s ability to perform similar work successfully:
Signature / Date: _________________________
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum 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. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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.
A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
| (U) 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an |
unsatisfactory rating.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .