Attachment_11_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_-_ISS.doc
DOC document 85 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Infrastructure Support Services (ISS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SECHQ1-15-R-0015
- Issued by
- Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
Attachment 11 - Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 49
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment 11 Past Performance Questionnaire
SECHQ1-15-R0015
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Office of Acquisitions, intends to obtain qualified firms under RFP No. SECHQ1-15-R0015 to provide professional business, program and project management support services in support of the mission requirements of the SEC. In order to accurately evaluate the Offeror’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance history of this Offeror.
Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. Upon completion of this form, please submit it with your proposal by the due date outlined in the solicitation.
Upon completion of this form, the corresponding COR or appropriate Government POC responsible for monitoring Contractors’ performance, shall be submitted by e-mail and deemed received when they arrive at the e-mail address specified in the RFP, no later than the response date.
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
| Outstanding (O) |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that SEC can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that SEC may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk. |
| Acceptable (A) |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the SEC may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. |
| Marginal (M) |
| The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect less than satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Quoter’s performance record presents a high degree of risk. |
Unacceptable (UA)
The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Quoter’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.
| Neutral (N) |
| A "Neutral" rating indicates an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available. |
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
CONTRACT NUMBER
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
| CONTRACT VALUE |
| CONTRACT TYPE |
CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,
ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY):
| NAME OF EVALUATOR, AGENCY, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS |
| DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED |
Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.
Please provide comments on each and every response for which you indicated O (Outstanding), VG (Very Good), M (Marginal) or UA (Unacceptable) in response to the questions below (use additional sheets, if necessary).
Performance Elements
| O |
| VG |
| A |
| M |
| UA |
| N |
| Comments |
Technical Approach and Performance
| 1. |
| Did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification? |
| 2. |
| Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements?) |
| 3. |
| Did the contractor implement quality processes, standard practices for infrastructure management, operations, maintenance and upgrades? |
| 4. |
| How effective was overall service delivery (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver services and projects on-time)? |
| 5. |
| Did the Contractor proactively bring forth innovative ideas for improvement to the current services? |
| 6. |
| Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting offices, CORs, government sponsors, users, project stakeholders and other contractors? |
Personnel and Employees Retention
| 7. |
| Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project? |
| 8. |
| Was the contractor able to maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract? |
| 9. |
| Were the resources assigned to your account qualified as per the requirements and delivered quality work? |
Service Performance (Quality and SLAs)
| 10. |
| Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner? |
| 11. |
| Was the contractor successful in delivering the quality service, meet the contractual Service Levels as required and was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? |
| 12. |
| Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues? |
Transition
| 13. |
| How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel? |
| 14. |
| Was the Contractor able to effectively capture the incumbent workforce? |
Cost Control
| 15. |
| How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs? |
| 16. |
| How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs? |
| 17. |
| How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred? |
| 18. |
| How sufficient and timely was the contractor’s cost reporting? |
Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation
| 19. |
| To what degree was the contractor able to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan? |
| 20. |
| How effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance? |
| 21. |
| How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? |
| 22. |
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “Supplemental Comment Form”. |
| YES/NO |
| 23. |
| Is the contractor rated in CPARS? |
| YES/NO |
Supplemental Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
PAGE
1 SECHQ1-15-R0015
Attachment 11
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .