15 - Attachment 0003 - DRAFT Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 302 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DRAFT SOLICITATION - National Capital Region (NCR) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)
- Solicitation number
- W51EW7-26-R-A002
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template used to evaluate contractor performance on previous contracts similar to the National Capital Region (NCR) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) solicitation W51EW7-26-R-A002. The questionnaire is issued by the U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command (HQ MICC) Theater Support Center (TSC) and must be completed by points of contact identified by offerors and returned to Contracting Officer Danette Wilson (danette.d.wilson.civ@army.mil) and Contract Specialist Amy Hahka (amy.k.hahka.civ@army.mil) by a deadline stated as "TBD."
The questionnaire contains three parts: Part I requests contractor/company identification, contract details, and offeror representative information; Part II requires evaluation responses on a four-level confidence scale (Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, or No Confidence) covering six performance criteria—compliance with specification requirements and workmanship standards, project management effectiveness, timeliness of performance, cost forecasting and control (for cost-reimbursement contracts), customer satisfaction commitment, and general comments; Part III directs submission back to the contracting officer. Each evaluation criterion requires supporting rationale. The questionnaire also requests identification of other relevant past performance efforts and contact information for additional references. This document serves as a standardized tool to assess past performance for the upcoming MATOC award decision and is not itself a solicitation for products or services.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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
Department of the Army U.S. Army mission and installation contracting command 2219 Infantry post road JBSA fort sam houston, Tx 78234-1361
January 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) W51EW7-26-R-A002
Dear Sir/Ma’am, The US Army, Headquarters Mission and Installation Contracting Command (HQ MICC), Theater Support Center (TSC), is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on the subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that Offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state, or local government or commercial contracts/projects as compared to solicitation W51EW7-26-R-A002. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.
Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified here within, no later than TBD. Submit your completed questionnaire to Contracting Officer, Ms. Danette Wilson at danette.d.wilson.civ@army.mil, and to Contract Specialist, Ms. Amy Hahka at amy.k.hahka.civ@army.mil.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to the undersigned at danette.d.wilson.civ@army.mil.
Sincerely, _///_Signature on File /// _ Danette D. Wilson Contracting Officer
Performance Assessment Questionnaire
Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does and notify the Contracting Officer. Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified in the cover letter within the stated timeframe.
Rating Definitions:
Substantial Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The offeror has been highly successfully in performing the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The offeror has successfully performed the required effort.
Limited Confidence: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective. The offeror has had little success performing the required effort.
No Confidence: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective. The offeror has not successfully performed the required effort.
PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)
A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
Contractor/Company Name/Division:
Address:
Program Identification/Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Type:
Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):
Contract Award Date:
Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:
Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:
Total Contract Value:
B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent) *Note: rationale is required for each response.
A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship
· Substantial Confidence
· Satisfactory Confidence
· Limited Confidence
· No Confidence
Rationale: _________________________________________________________
B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).
· Limited Confidence
· No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.
· Limited Confidence
· No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).
· Limited Confidence
· No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest
· Limited Confidence
· No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.
Comments: _________________________________________________________
G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:
Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?
If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:
Point of Contact (Name): __________________________________________ Telephone Number: ______________________________________________
H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:
Organization:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number
E-mail Address:
PART III. RETURN INFORMATION
Please return this completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.
Thank you for your assistance.
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .