Attachment_9_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Solicitation for the Quality Assurance for Technical Support contract. Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SOL-HQ-14-00018
About this file
Attachment 9 - Past Performance Questionaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_SOL-HQ-14-00018_Amd_000001.pdf | ||
| QATS_RFP_-_Amendment_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_9_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_10_-_Client_Authorization_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_5_-_QATS_QASP_v2_0.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOL-HQ-14-00018_-_v18_021916.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment_1 _SOL_Changes_-QATS_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_6_-_Key_Personnel.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_6_-_Key_Personnel.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_10_-_Client_Authorization_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_-_Invoice_Preparation_Instructions.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_5_-_QATS_QASP_v2_0.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_SOL-HQ-14-00018.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_-_QATS_GFP_-_updated.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_1_-_QATS_PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_3_-_QATS_Reports_of_Work.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 16
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
SOL-HQ-14-00018 ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9 –
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
STANDARD CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
This is a past performance questionnaire for The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain past performance information on the contractor listed below. You should have received this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter from the contractor listed below asking for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Information obtained in this questionnaire is for the sole purpose of evaluating the contractor’s past performance history to assist EPA in determining the best value for award of a contract resulting from our solicitation. As an evaluator, your participation in this questionnaire is greatly appreciated.
INSTRUCTIONS
To complete this questionnaire, the contractor should:
1. Complete the CONTRACT DATA section on Page 3.
2. Forward this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter to the reviewer.
To complete this questionnaire, the evaluator should:
1. Review the CONTRACT DATA section on Page 3.
2. Review and complete the ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION section on Page 3.
3. Complete the EVALUATION FACTORS section starting on Page 5 using the RATINGS on Pages 3-4 based on the Contractor Performance Rating System (CPARS). Evaluate and assign a rating for Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, Utilization of Small business, and Customer Satisfaction. Include a narrative for each rating if appropriate.
4. Return the questionnaire to the U.S. EPA by email to uhr.danny@epa.gov by March 11, 2016.
QUESTIONS
If you have any questions about completing or submitting this questionnaire, please contact the Contract Specialist for this acquisition, Danny Uhr, at uhr.danny@epa.gov.
CONTRACT DATA
Contract Number:
Contractor Name:
Contract Title:
Contractor Address:
Contract Value:
Contractor DUNS:
Contract Type:
Contract Award Date:
Agency/Org. Name:
Reporting Period (Start):
Contracting Office:
Reporting Period (End):
TASK ORDER DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
Task Order Number:
Task Order Value:
Task Order Title:
Task Order Award Date:
Reporting Period (Start):
Task Order Type:
Reporting Period (End):
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
Evaluator:
Contracting Officer:
Phone:
Phone:
Fax:
Fax:
Email:
Email:
Contractor Rep.:
Alt. Contractor Rep.:
Phone:
Phone:
Fax:
Fax:
Email:
Email:
(Next page)
RATINGS
The following ratings and definitions apply to the Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, and Management of Key Personnel factors:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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. |
| 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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). |
| 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). |
| N/A |
| N/A (not applicable) should be used if the rating category does not apply |
| Please explain all ratings of N/A |
The following ratings and definitions apply to the Utilization of Small Business factor:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Exceeded all negotiated subcontracting goals or exceeded at least one goal and met all of the other negotiated subcontracting goals for the current period. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. |
| Very Good |
| Met all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the traditional socio-economic categories (SB, SDB and WOSB) and met at least one of the other socio-economic goals (HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB) for the current period. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. |
| Satisfactory |
| Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner. |
| Marginal |
| Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. |
| N/A |
| N/A (not applicable) should be used if the rating category does not apply |
EVALUATION FACTORS
1. Quality of Product or Service. Assess the Contractor's conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards).
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
2. Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).
This assessment of the Contractor's adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the Contractor's efforts during the assessment period that contributes to or effect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the assessment of liquidated damages, or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract schedule and should therefore be noted in the evaluation.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Schedule (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
3. Cost Control (Not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment). Assess the Contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost.
For example, does the Contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)? Did the Contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings? Were billings current, accurate and complete? Are the Contractor's budgetary internal controls adequate?
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Cost Control (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
4. Business Relations. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Business Relations (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
5. Management of Key Personnel (For Services and Information Technology Business Sectors only - Not Applicable to Operations Support). Assess the Contractor's performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Management of Key Personnel (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
6. Utilization of Small Business (Not applicable if contractor is a small business or if the contract did not require a Subcontracting Plan)
| RATING |
| Provide comments on Utilization of Small Business (2000 characters maximum): |
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
7. Customer Satisfaction
Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?
Yes
No
Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?
Yes
No
Provide comments on Customer Satisfaction (2000 characters maximum):
Attachment 9 Page 7 of 7
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .