2.04d Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 656 KB Posted

Attached to
EOD Diving: Administrative and Logistics Support Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
N6883625QS056
Issued by
Department of the Navy Naval Supply Systems Command

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Jacksonville solicitation related to an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Diving Administrative and Logistics Support contract (Solicitation Number N6883625QS056). The questionnaire is designed to comprehensively evaluate a contractor's performance across 26 specific criteria, including management capabilities, quality control, problem-solving, responsiveness to contract changes, personnel management, delivery schedules, reporting accuracy, and overall contract performance.

The evaluation uses a six-point rating scale ranging from "Exceptional" to "Unsatisfactory", allowing the government evaluator to provide detailed insights into the contractor's performance. Key areas of assessment include the contractor's ability to provide experienced managers, maintain qualified personnel, follow quality control procedures, meet delivery schedules, handle workload surges, manage subcontractors, submit accurate billing and reports, and effectively manage small business participation. The document includes sections for contract identification, customer agency details, evaluator information, performance ratings, and a narrative summary, providing a comprehensive tool for past performance assessment in federal contracting.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to EOD Diving: Administrative and Logistics Support, newest first.
File Type Posted
Solicitation Amendment N6883625QS056 Amd 01.pdf PDF
Industry Question Answer Amd 01.pdf PDF
2.04c Wage Determination.pdf PDF
2.04 SF 1449 - N6883625QS056.pdf PDF
2.04a CDRL.pdf PDF
2.04b QASP.pdf PDF
2.04e DD254.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVSUP FLC Jacksonville solicitation N6883625QS056

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor:

B. Cage Code:

C. Contract number:

D. Contract type:

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes ____ No _____

F. Period of performance:

G. Initial contract cost:

H. Current/final contract cost:

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

J. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION A.

Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION A.

Evaluator's name:

B. Evaluator's title:

C. Evaluator's phone/fax number:

D. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract:

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

E EXCEPTIONAL - The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VG VERY GOOD- The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

US UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NA NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score.

Place an ''X" in the appropriate column using the definitions above.

The Contractor: E VG S M US NA

1. Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.

2. Demonstrated ability to hire, maintain, and replace, if necessary, qualified personnel during the contract period.

3. Delegated authority to project managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements.

4. Reserved.

5. Followed approved quality control plan.

6. Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

7. Corrected deficiencies in a timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.

The Contractor: E VG S M US NA

8. Provided timely resolution of contract discrepancies.

9. Identified problems as they occurred.

10. Suggested alternative approaches to problems.

11. Displayed initiative to solve problems.

12. Was responsive to contract changes.

13. Provided adequate project supervision.

14. Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner.

15. Provided accurate and complete line item cost proposals including all aspects of work required for each task.

The Contractor: E VG S M US NA

16. Provided services or completed task orders in accordance with the delivery schedule?

17. Cooperated with Government personnel after award.

18. Submitted accurate and timely reports.

19. Submitted all deliverables in accordance with the contract delivery schedule.

20. Handled both scheduled and unscheduled surges (increased workload) while controlling costs?

21. Submitted current, accurate, and complete billings?

22. How would you rate the contractor's overall performance?

23. Reserved.

24. Ability to effectively manage small business participation to meet technical performance.

25. Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in "Comments."

26. Would you award another contract to this company?

1. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated E (Exceptional), M (Marginal) or US(Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

2. Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes____ Default____ Convenience____ Pending Terminations____ No ___

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc).

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

E-mail to: Kyle Nelson at Kyle.a.nelson2.civ@us.navy.mil and Chelsea McNeely at Chelsea.n.mcneely.civ@us.navy.mil

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