Attachment_4-Past_Performance_Questionnaire_0001.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fairweather Main Fire Pump Replacement
- Solicitation number
- 1333MK25Q0083
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 | ||
| Main_fire_pump__(1)_0001.JPG | JPG image | |
| 002_SON_FA_Main_Fire_Pump_Rev_0.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_1333MK25Q0083.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 .