Attachment_8_Updated_Past_Performance_Questionn.pdf
PDF 212 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 1305M2-18-R-NFFN-0002
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluating contractors for a NOAA solicitation seeking observer support services. The questionnaire assesses offerors on quality of service, schedule, cost control, and management. Respondents will rate contractors on a scale from exceptional to unsatisfactory for each category and provide comments. The completed questionnaire must be returned to the NOAA contract specialist Julia Klotz by September 6, 2018. The solicitation seeks a single-award IDIQ contract to provide observer support services for NOAA's Southeast Fisheries Science Center Observer Program. The requirement is 100% set aside for small businesses.
Updated Attachment 8
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
Solicitation #: 1305M2-18-R-NFFN-0002
Attachment: 8
Source Selection Information
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED:
PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE
(and agency represented):
REFERENCE CONTRACT #:
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
SATISFACTORY
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.
MARGINAL
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the
Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the
Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Comments:
Send Completed Questionnaire to the Contract Specialist, Julia Klotz no later than 09/06/2018 12:00 pm EST: julia.callahan@noaa.gov
1. QUALITY OF SERVICE
Assess the contractor’s performance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, or environmental standards).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
Attachment: 9
Source Selection Information
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 affect the schedule variance).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
SATISFACTORY
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.
MARGINAL
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the
Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the
Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Comments:
Source Selection Information
3. COST CONTROL
Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost.
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
SATISFACTORY
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.
MARGINAL
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the
Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the
Source Selection Information
4. MANAGEMENT
Assess the integration and coordination of all activities 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, and customer satisfaction.
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
SATISFACTORY
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.
MARGINAL
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the
Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the
Source Selection Information
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY:
Rater’s Name: ___________________________
Rater’s Signature: ________________________
Date: ____________________________________
Send Completed Questionnaire to Contract Specialist, Julia Klotz no later than 09/06/2018 12:00 pm EST: julia.callahan@noaa.gov
| CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED: |
| PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE and agency represented: |
| REFERENCE CONTRACT: |
| RATINGRow1: |
| RATINGRow2: |
| RATINGRow3: |
| RATINGRow4: |
| RATINGRow5: |
| RATINGRow1_2: |
| RATINGRow2_2: |
| RATINGRow3_2: |
| RATINGRow4_2: |
| RATINGRow5_2: |
| RATINGRow1_3: |
| RATINGRow2_3: |
| RATINGRow3_3: |
| RATINGRow4_3: |
| RATINGRow5_3: |
| RATINGRow1_4: |
| RATINGRow2_4: |
| RATINGRow3_4: |
| RATINGRow4_4: |
| RATINGRow5_4: |
| Raters Name: |
| Date: |
| Comments: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .