Attachment_C.docx

ATTACHMENT C

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Contractor Evaluated in this Questionnaire: ________________________________ Company Providing Reference: ___________________ Name of Contact: _________________________ Date: ___________________________________

Please check the box with the applicable response for the questions below.

1. Direct applicability:

The RRB is considering this contractor to provide both non-jewelry (e.g. vases, engraved desk sets, mantle clocks, etc.) and jewelry awards (e.g. watch, necklace, bracelet etc.) for our years of career service recognition program. Did this contractor perform this specific type of service for your organization?

☐ Positively yes, the referenced contractor provided virtually identical services ☐ Basically yes, the referenced contractor provided generally similar services ☐ The referenced contractor provided slightly related services ☐ The referenced contractor provided fundamentally different services

Comments:

☐ Very satisfied with every aspect of the service ☐ Relatively satisfied ☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ☐ Relatively dissatisfied ☐ Services were unacceptable

Comments:

3. Which of the following statements is most representative of the contractor’s ability to resolve issues/problems (major or minor) during the life of your project (please select one):

☐ There were limited to no contractor issues during the life of the project.

☐ There were contractor issues during the life of the project; however, they were minor in nature and when addressed with the contractor, resolution was expedient and accurate.

☐ Issues were encountered. Resolution was adequately responsive with some lingering and/or minor inaccuracies in the contractor’s approach to resolving the issue.

☐ Significant issues were encountered. While generally resolved, resolution was unnecessarily delayed and inaccuracies or inefficiencies existed.

☐ Issues were encountered and the contractor either would not or could not remedy the matter.

Comments:

4. Taking the entire project into account, would you use this contractor again?

☐ Yes, definitely ☐ Yes, but with certain reservations ☐ Possibly ☐ Never

Comments:

5. Quality of items:

What was the quality of the items you received from this contractor?

☐ Of the highest quality/far exceeded my quality expectations/requirements ☐ Exceeded my quality expectations/requirements ☐ Met my quality expectations/requirements ☐ Below my expectations/requirements in terms of quality ☐ Regularly failed to meet my expectations/requirements in terms of quality

Comments:

6. To what extent did the contractor display initiative and adaptability in meeting requirements?

☐ The contractor exceeded my expectations in terms of displaying initiative and adaptability.

☐ The contractor generally met my expectations in terms of displaying initiative and adaptability.

☐ The contractor somewhat met my expectations in terms of displaying initiative and adaptability.

☐ The contractor regularly failed to meet my expectations in terms of displaying initiative and adaptability.

Comments:

7. Reliability and timeliness of performance:

Was the contractor reliable and timely in their delivery and performance of the work?

☐ Yes.

☐ Mostly yes. There were a few unavoidable delays. However, I was satisfied with the overall performance.

☐ There were more than an expected number of delays. The performance was overall acceptable; however, there were some issues in the contractor’s performance.

☐ No. There were an unacceptable number of delays and I could not rely on the contractor.

Comments:

8. Business relations:

Did the contractor cooperate with your organization on business and contract administration issues?

☐ Yes, in every situation ☐ Yes, in most situations ☐ There were more than an expected number of business/contract issues. Overall, the contractor was cooperative; however, the issues were more than expected and/or could not be resolved by the contractor.

☐ No. The contractor was uncooperative and/or unresponsive to business/contract matters.

Comments: