SF330 Attachment - Past Performance Questionnaire - Charleston EHRM.docx
Standard Form DOCX document 111 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C77624R0003
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template for a federal contractor to provide to a previous client for feedback on a completed project. The questionnaire requests information and ratings on quality, schedule, communication, management and personnel, cost management, and subcontract management for a project to upgrade the data center for the EHRM system at the Joint System Architecture Facility Data Center in Charleston, South Carolina. The client is asked to provide an overall rating for the contractor's past performance on the project and indicate if they would hire or work with the contractor again. The previous client will return the completed questionnaire to the contractor to include in their SF330 proposal submission for the related federal contract opportunity to provide design services for the EHRM Data Center Upgrades Project at the same location.
View the file
Other versions and copies of SF 330
Show all 20
Who attaches SF 330
| State | Files |
|---|---|
| Florida | 97 |
| Maryland | 41 |
| Pennsylvania | 23 |
| Washington | 21 |
| Texas | 19 |
Other files
Show all 16
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
VA PROGRAM CONTRACTING ACTIVITY CENTRAL ● 6000 OAK TREE BLVD SUITE 490 ● INDEPENDENCE, OH 44131
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
*All PPQs are included in the 50-page limit for SF330 submissions.
SECTION 1
CONTRACT INFORMATION – Contractor to complete #1-3
1. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME OF OFFEROR BEING EVALUATED: Click or tap here to enter text.
ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
POINT OF CONTACT: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
WORK PERFOMED AS: Click or tap here to enter text.
PERCENT OF PROJECT WORK PERFORMED: Click or tap here to enter text.
IF SUBCONTRACTOR, WHO WAS THE PRIME? Click or tap here to enter text.
2. CONTRACT INFORMATION
CONTRACT TITLE: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT NUMBER AND DO/TO NUMBER: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT TYPE: Choose an item.
if other:
CONTRACT LOCATION: Click or tap here to enter text.
AWARD DATE: Click or tap to enter a date.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT ACCCEPTANCE (construction accepted) Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
ACTUAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE: Click or tap to enter a date.
EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES: Click or tap here to enter text.
ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION PRICE: Click or tap here to enter text.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE (all costs - design/installation/financing): Click or tap here to enter text.
FINAL CONTRACT PRICE (including modifications, if applicable): Click or tap here to enter text.
EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES: Click or tap here to enter text.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPE INCLUDED IN PROJECT: Click or tap here to enter text.
HOW IS THIS PROJECT RELEVANT TO PROJECT OF SUBMISSION? Click or tap here to enter text.
SECTION 2
EVALUATOR INFORMATION – Client to complete
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Program Contracting Activity Central (PCAC) is considering the Offeror identified above for award of the EHRM Data Center Upgrades Design Project for JSA-FDS in Charleston, SC.
Your comments would be appreciated regarding this firm’s past performance. The intent of this form is to evaluate the company’s ability to perform the work as described in the solicitation. Please verify the accuracy of the information in Section 1 and complete the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. VHA-PCAC may contact you in order to obtain any additional information regarding a contract award.
Please return your completed questionnaire to the Offeror to be incorporated into the SF330 submission. PPQs should NOT be submitted directly to VHA PCAC by the client. Refer to the solicitation for SF330 submission due date.
EVALUATOR INFORMATION
NAME OF EVALUATOR: Click or tap here to enter text.
POSITION: Click or tap here to enter text.
ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
PHONE: Click or tap here to enter text.
EMAIL: Click or tap here to enter text.
DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN THE PROJECT: Click or tap here to enter text.
*Please see Page 4 for Adjectival Ratings for the following:
1. QUALITY
| Ability to meet quality design and/or construction standards specified for technical performance |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
2. SCHEDULE/ TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including timely submission of data deliverables (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below.) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
3. COMMUNICATION
| Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with client staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes and responsiveness to client requests) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/ LABOR
| Effectiveness of management, including suppliers, materials, and/or labor force (including the ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the project) |
| Choose an item. |
| Continuity in the contractor’s personnel during execution of the contract (e.g., one person or team that stayed with the project throughout the contract) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
5. COST/ FINANCIAL MANGEMENT
| Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
6. SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Ability to manage subcontracting effort, including any subcontracting issues, and the contractor’s ability to resolve the problems without extensive customer guidance
Choose an item.
Comments:
7. SUMMARY
| Would you hire or work with this firm again? If no, please explain below. |
| Choose an item. |
| Provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| Choose an item. |
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
| EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: |
| DATE: |
ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
*THIS PAGE WILL BE REMOVED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES AND NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SF330 PAGE COUNT – IT IS FOR PPQ COMPLETION PURPOSES ONLY*
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Outstanding |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were highly effective. |
| Above Average |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were satisfactory. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the Offeror has yet to identify corrective actions or the Offeror’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract. |
image1.tiff
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .