2.03a Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 194 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Paper Shredding Service- NETC, Pensacola FL
- Solicitation number
- N6883624Q0220
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire that is likely used in the evaluation of a federal contract opportunity. The questionnaire asks the rater to provide performance ratings and narrative justification for key areas such as quality of products/services, cost control, timeliness of deliveries, ability to meet special needs, and management of subcontractors. The rating scale ranges from "Exceptional" to "Unsatisfactory."
The related federal contract opportunity is for a Paper Shredding Service in support of the Naval Education Training Center (NETC) in Pensacola, FL. The solicitation number is N6883624Q0220, and the Point of Contact is Contract Specialist Yaynel Yambo. Offerors are instructed to review the full RFQ, with particular attention paid to the Instruction to Offerors on page 18, prior to submitting any questions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| 2.05 Amendment_A0001.pdf | ||
| 2.03 RFQ_N6883624Q0220.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
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
REQUIREMENT:
Contractor:
Contract Number:
Contract Name:
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 Definition Note
Exceptional
(E)
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.
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. In addition, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
Very Good
(VG)
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.
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.
Satisfactory
(S)
Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be or were satisfactory.
Marginal
(M)
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.
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).
Unsatisfactory
(U)
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 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.
Section I Contractor Performance Response
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided? Exceptional
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs? Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A
3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the products/services delivered? Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A
4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements?
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal
Unsatisfactory N/A
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory N/A
Section II Additional Supporting Narrative: <Include the number of the question to which this support narrative applies. Additional pages may be used.>
Section III
Signature of rater: _______________________________________ Date:__________________________
Section IV Please have the questionnaire completed prior to the solicitation close date.
Section V For any questions pertaining to the questionnaire, please contact:
9/19/2024
YAYNEL.C.YAMBO.CIV@US.NAVY.MIL
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .