2.02 Attachment 3 - Past Performance Reference Questionnaire.pdf

ATTACHMENT 6

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Information Technology (IT), Knowledge Management, Administrative and Maintenance Management staff support services to the US Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. Fourth Fleet Staff located at Naval Station Mayport, FL

<Header section is to be completed by the offeror and provided to the reference with instructions to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the government contact identified in section IV. This questionnaire must be completed correctly and returned with the proposals.>

Contractor:

Contract Number: RFQ N6883620Q0272

Contract Name: Information Technology (IT), Knowledge Management, Administrative and Maintenance Management staff support services

Rater Name:

Rater Telephone:

Rater E‐Mail Address: Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user, etc.):

Rating

Exceptional

(E)

Very Good

(VG)

Definition

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for

Note

To justify an “exceptional” rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the government.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

To justify a “very good” rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal

(M)

Unsatisfactory

(U) which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be or were satisfactory.

Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions.

The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A “marginal” rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits an “unsatisfactory” rating. An “unsatisfactory” rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter.

INDEX

Section I – Ratings

Section II – Additional Narrative Justification

Section III – Signature of Rater

Section IV – Return Instructions

Section V – Contact Information

Please provide any relevant information to support the above ratings.

<Note: When completing this questionnaire by e‐mail, please do not use a color, such as red, to select the rating in section I of this questionnaire. Color fonts do not show well when printed. Just bold it, underline it, or increase the font size in black.>

Section I

Contractor Performance

1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided?

Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>

Response

E VG S M U N/A

2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs?

3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the products/services delivered?

4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements?

5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?

Section II

Additional Supporting Narrative: <Include the number of the question to which this supporting narrative applies. Additional pages may be used.>

Section III

Signature of rater: _______________________________________

Date: __________________________________________________

<Signature of rater is required, if faxed. It is not required if sent via e‐mail directly from rater.>

Section IV

Return the completed questionnaire via e‐mail to: <riquelme.torres@navy.mil>

Please return the completed questionnaire by <3:00 PM EST, 00 August 2020>

Section V

For any questions pertaining to the questionnaire, please contact: <Riquelme Torres‐Aviles, riquelme.torres@navy.mil >

Commented [TRCNFJ21]: TBD