Past_Performance_Contract_Profiles_4-2016.docx
DOCX document 81 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Canine Certification and Validation Center
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA16R0028
About this file
Past Performance Contract Profiles (Section J - Attachment 2)
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Question_and_Response_A002-_Solicitation_SAQMMA16R0028.docx | DOCX document | |
| SAQMMA16R0028-A001.pdf | ||
| Questions_and_Responses_-_Solicitation_SAQMMA16R0028.docx | DOCX document | |
| Canine_Certification_ _Validation_Center_SAQMMA16R0028.pdf | ||
| Bidder's_DD_Form_254(16).pdf | ||
| Service_Level_Agreement_Template_04-2016.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
Please complete the following questionnaire and return via fax or email to the attention of:
Jackie Alston By: On or before May 11, 2016 (Name) (Date)
Subject: Solicitation SAQMMA16R0028 – Canine & Veterinary Services
Address: N/A
(Fax Number): 571-345-0427
(Email): alstonjl@state.gov
This survey pertains to: __________________________________
Department/Component: ___________________________________
Contract Number: _________________________ Date of Survey:
Name of Person Completing Survey:
Signature of Person Completing Survey:
Your Company/Agency:
Your Role in this Contract (circle one):
Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Project Officer Other
Contract Value (including options): $
Performance Period:
(including option periods)
Type of Contract:
Approximate percentage of work being performed (or completed) by subcontractor(s): %
Information on subcontractor(s) (where more than % of work was completed by the subcontractor):
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
Subcontractor Program Manager Phone
General description of products/services required under the contract:
RATINGS
Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Commentary to support rating shall be noted on page 4.
Assign each area a rating of 0 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), 3 (Good), 4 (Excellent), or 5 (Outstanding). Use the attached Rating Guidelines as guidance in making these evaluations. Circle the appropriate rating. If you do not have enough personal knowledge or feedback from internal customers who directly received products and services from the contractor to make a determination on any of the performance criteria below, please circle "N/A" (not applicable/no opinion).
QUALITY OF SERVICE
| 1. | Compliance with contract requirements | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 2. | Accuracy of reports | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 3. | Effectiveness of personnel | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 4. | Technical Excellence | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| 1. | Met interim milestones | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 2. | Reliability | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 3. | Responsive to technical direction | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 4. | Completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 5. | Met delivery schedules | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
6. Liquidated damages assessed: Yes No (circle one)
BUSINESS RELATIONS/PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
| 1. | Effective management, including management of subcontracts | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 2. | Reasonable/cooperative behavior | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 3. | Responsive to contract requirements | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 4. | Notification of problems | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 5. | Flexibility | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 6. | Pro-active vs reactive | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
| 7. | Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/A |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
1. The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction.
Yes No (circle one)
2. Would you recommend selection of this firm again?
Yes No (circle one)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Rating Guidelines
| QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE |
| COST CONTROL |
| TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE |
| BUSINESS RELATIONS |
| 0-Unsatisfactory |
| Contractor is not in compliance and is jeopardizing achievement of contract objectives |
| Contractor is unable to manage costs effectively |
| Contractor delays are jeopardizing performance of contract objectives |
| Response to inquiries, technical/ |
service/ administrative issues is not effective
| 1-Poor |
| Major problems have been encountered |
| Contractor is having major difficulty managing costs effectively |
| Contractor is having major difficulty meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to inquiries, technical/ |
service/ administrative issues is marginally effective
| 2-Fair |
| Some problems have been encountered |
| Contractor is having some problems managing costs effectively |
| Contractor is having some problems meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to |
inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is somewhat effective
| 3-Good |
| Minor inefficiencies/ |
errors have been identified
| Contractor is usually effective in managing costs |
| Contractor is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to |
inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is usually effective
| 4-Excellent |
| Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and/or delivers quality products/services |
| Contractor is effective in managing costs and submits current, accurate, and complete billings |
| Contractor is effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule |
| Response to |
inquiries, technical/ service/ administrative issues is effective
5-Outstanding: The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level in any of the above four categories that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .