S02 ATTACHMENT D Past Performance Questionnaire 36C10X25R0009.docx

S02 ATTACHMENT C - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs, Strategic Acquisition Center - Frederick

RFQ: 36C10X25R0009, VA POLICE BODY WORN CAMERAS

TO: Carey M. Kauzlarich

INFORMATION REQUEST: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently in the process of awarding a competitive service contract [CONTRACTOR NAME] has provided this Questionnaire to you for a reference regarding [CONTRACTOR NAME]’s record of past performance under Contract No. [CONTRACT #].

Please send completed questionnaires to Brian.Ballard@va.gov AND Carey.Kauzlarich@va.gov.

NOTE TO RESPONDENTS: If the Questionnaire is provided for a subcontractor’s reference, the contractor’s name below must include both the subcontractor’s name and the offeror’s name who will be the prime contractor for this solicitation (e.g. contractor X, who will be a subcontractor to offeror Y for this solicitation).

Vendor’s Name:

Name of Person Completing the Evaluation:

Telephone: E-mail:

Title:

Company/Organization:

Instructions:

Please rate the vendor in each of the following areas. Note: there is room for comments where you deem remarks would be helpful to our evaluation. Definitions for the ratings are at the end of this document.

7. What was the contract period of performance (i.e., when were services provided)?

8. What was the dollar value of the contract performed by the vendor?

9. Provide a brief description of the services provided by the vendor for this contract.

Table Ratings

(a) 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.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. 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.

(b) 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.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(c) 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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

(d) 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.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

(e) 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.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).