ATTACHMENT3PP word 03.doc
DOC document 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Amended Synopsis Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W912JB10R4014
About this file
Past Performance Questionnaire in Microsoft Word
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q A 1-61 and unanswered Q Sept 15.pdf | ||
| Q A 1-58 Sept 14.pdf | ||
| 10R4014-01.pdf | ||
| 10R4014 released.pdf | ||
| Q A 1-56 10 Sept 10.pdf | ||
| Q A 1-54 9 Sept 10.pdf | ||
| Pre Proposal Conference Q A 1-50 SEPT 8.pdf | ||
| Final PASS Pre-Proposal Slides 31 Aug 10.ppt | PPT presentation | |
| PreProposal sign in.xls | XLS spreadsheet |
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 3
Past Performance Reference Package
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEET COVER SHEET
Request for Quote Number: W912JB-10-R-4014 Proposal closing date:
Submit completed Cover Sheet and Survey via mail, fax, or email to:
127 MSC – Contracting Division
43200 Maple Street, Bldg. 105
Selfridge ANG Base, MI 48045-5213
Fax: (586) 239-4300
Email: 127wg.contractomb@ang.af.mil Name of Company:
Contract Number:
Contract Type:
Contract Amount:
Contract Period of Performance (including all options):
Product/Service Description:
Name, title and phone number of person completing questionnaire:
Length of time your firm has been involved with this company:
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY RATING SHEET
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, please mark “Neutral/NA”.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Acceptable - The company’s performance was satisfactory and you would consider doing business with them again. There may have been minor performance problems which were satisfactorily corrected.
Unacceptable - The company’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and you would not do business with them again under any circumstances. There were serious performance issues with the contractor for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
Neutral/NA - No record exists or not applicable.
NOTE:
For statements indicating “Unacceptable”, please provide an explanation in the comments section of the survey.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
Neutral
/ NA
| Acceptable |
| Unacceptable |
A. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
B. COST CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
C. SCHEDULE:
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
D. BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.
E. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The products/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
F. KEY PERSONNEL:
(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.
(2) The Contractor proposed qualified personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract.
G. OTHER:
(1) Would you award this firm another contract? ( ) Yes ( ) No If “No”, please provide an explanation.________________________________________________________________________
(2) Was the contract terminated for default? ( ) Yes ( ) No If “Yes”, please provide an explanation. __________________________________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
(Required for ALL Unacceptable Ratings)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .