Attachment_4-Past_Performance_Questionnaire_0001.pdf

PDF 312 KB Posted

Attached to
Fairweather Main Fire Pump Replacement
Solicitation number
1333MK25Q0083
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity, designed to evaluate a contractor's performance across four key dimensions: Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management. The questionnaire provides a structured rating system with five adjectival ratings (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory) for each performance dimension, allowing evaluators to assess a contractor's effectiveness by checking the appropriate rating box and providing optional comments.

The ratings assess specific aspects such as adherence to contract requirements, problem-solving capabilities, timeliness, cost management, and overall integration of contract activities. Each rating category includes detailed definitions that help standardize the evaluation process, with ratings ranging from performance that exceeds government requirements to performance that fails to meet most contractual obligations. The document is part of a solicitation (1333MK25Q0083) for a main fire pump replacement for the NOAA Ship Fairweather, and is to be completed and submitted to Christopher Baker at Christopher.Baker@NOAA.GOV by 5/7/25.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
main_fire_pump__0001.JPG JPG image
Sol_1333MK25Q0083_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
Main_fire_pump__(1)_0001.JPG JPG image
002_SON_FA_Main_Fire_Pump_Rev_0.docx DOCX document
Sol_1333MK25Q0083.pdf PDF

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

ATTACHMENT 4:

PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE

SOLICITATION

Source Selection Information

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED:

PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE:

REFERENCE CONTRACT #:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION:

Send Completed Questionnaire to at no later than

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.)

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

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

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

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

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY:

Rater’s Name: ___________________________

Rater’s Signature: ________________________

Rater's Email Address______________________

Rater's Phone #___________________________

Date: ____________________________________

CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
REFERENCE CONTRACT:
PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE:
DEFINITION:
RATINGRow1:
EXCEPTIONAL:
RATINGRow2:
VERY GOOD:
RATINGRow3:
SATISFACTORY:
RATINGRow4:
MARGINAL:
RATINGRow5:
UNSATISFACTORY:
DEFINITION_2:
RATINGRow1_2:
EXCEPTIONAL_2:
RATINGRow2_2:
VERY GOOD_2:
RATINGRow3_2:
SATISFACTORY_2:
RATINGRow4_2:
MARGINAL_2:
RATINGRow5_2:
UNSATISFACTORY_2:
DEFINITION_3:
RATINGRow1_3:
EXCEPTIONAL_3:
RATINGRow2_3:
VERY GOOD_3:
RATINGRow3_3:
SATISFACTORY_3:
RATINGRow4_3:
MARGINAL_3:
RATINGRow5_3:
UNSATISFACTORY_3:
DEFINITION_4:
RATINGRow1_4:
EXCEPTIONAL_4:
RATINGRow2_4:
VERY GOOD_4:
RATINGRow3_4:
SATISFACTORY_4:
RATINGRow4_4:
MARGINAL_4:
RATINGRow5_4:
UNSATISFACTORY_4:
Raters Name:
Date:
Text1: 1333MK25Q0083
Date4_af_date: 5/07/25
Text2: Christopher.Baker@NOAA.GOV
Text3:
Text5: Christopher Baker

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .