past_performance_eval_matrix_sample.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USAID Overseas Prepositioning Warehouse Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SOL-OAA-15-000031
About this file
Past Performance Matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amend__2.pdf | ||
| Questions_from_Industry_5-14-2015_w_volumes.pdf | ||
| Employee_Biodata_Sheets.doc | DOC document | |
| Price_Schedule_Only.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOL-OAA-15-000031_final_for_post.pdf |
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
Sheet1
| Offeror: | International Development Inc. | |||
| Area Rated | Relevancy (Indicate if and how the project being reviewed meets the RFP requirements in terms of recency, dollar value, relevant work, etc.) *Provide comments in Overall Comments Rows Below) | Rating Assigned (Also, may identify the source, e.g.. PPIRS, CPARS, Reference, etc.) | Project title (May also identify contract number or project name, period of performance and point of contract information or any other useful identifying information) | Related Narrative |
| Quality of Product/Service: | Satisfactory Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Very Good (PPIRS) | ABC Project (EPA-xxx-11-000000; 05/2011 to 04/2012; Nancy Sharp, Nsharp@epa.gov) | The firm performed very well under the contract. | |
| Project #2 | Marginal (PPIRS) | Ag Value Chains (AID-xxx-C-09-000001; 01/2009 to 12/20012; John Green 302-223-4560) | Services met expectations most of the time but there were performance issues such as….. | |
| Project #3 | Very Good (Ref.) | Technical Assistance (USDA-xxx-08-000001; Agri Support, 03/2008/ to 02/2012) | ||
| Schedule: | Marginal Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Unsatisfactory (CPARS) | ABC Project | The contractor consistently missed delivery schedules…. | |
| Project #2 | Marginal (CPARS) | Ag Value Chains | ||
| Project #3 | Satisfactory (CPARS) | Technical Assistance | ||
| Cost Control: | Exceptional Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Exceptional (PPIRS) | ABC Project | The contractor did an excellent job at containing costs during performance | |
| Project #2 | Very Good (PPIRS) | Ag Value Chains | ||
| Project #3 | Exceptional (PPIRS) | Technical Assistance | ||
| Business Relations: | Very Good Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Very Good (CPARS | ABC Project | ||
| Project #2 | Exceptional (PPIRS) | Ag Value Chains | The contractor was always responsive to customer needs and went out of their way to ensure customer satisfaction. | |
| Project #3 | Marginal (Ref.) | Technical Assistance | ||
| Management of Key Personnel: | Satisfactory Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Satisfactory (Ref.) | ABC Project | The key personnel originally assigned did not meet expectations. | |
| Project #2 | Satisfactory (Ref.) | Ag Value Chains | ||
| Project #3 | Satisfactory (Ref.) | Technical Assistance | ||
| Utilization of Small Business: | Very Good Overall | |||
| Project #1 | Very Good (PPIRS) | ABC Project | ||
| Project #2 | Exceptional (Ref.) | Ag Value Chains | ||
| Project #3 | Very Good (Ref.) | Technical Assistance | ||
| Other Areas: | NA | |||
| Project #1 | ABC Project | |||
| Project #2 | Ag Value Chains | |||
| Project #3 | Technical Assistance | |||
| Overall Comments: | ||||
| Project #1 | * Project is for similar work performing value chain analysis in developing countries. The project performance period was from 2010 - 2012. The contract value was greater than $20M, which is comparable to the proposed project. All the RFP requirements for relevancy of the project have been met. | ABC Project | Performance has improved over the current performance period, trend is positive, I would hire them again | |
| Project #2 | Ag Value Chains | Very impressed with contractor's performance, I would Definitely award to them again | ||
| Project #3 | Technical Assistance | Performance has remained stable but improvements are needed, I may consider awarding to them again | ||
| TEC's Final/Summary Consensus Rating of the Offeror's Past Performance | * Satisfactory | |||
| *The rating assigned for the project being evaluated should reflect the adjectives being used by the TEC for the project. It should consider all past performance project information collected and use should that information to logically assign an overall rating for each offeror. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .