Past Performance Questionaire 6973GH21R00094.doc
DOC document 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- LEASE OF CESSNA CITATION SOVEREIGN PLUS
- Solicitation number
- 6973GH-21-R-00094
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal solicitation for the lease of Cessna Citation Sovereign Plus aircraft. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by an offeror and reference to assess performance on prior contracts in areas such as quality, timeliness, cost control, business relations, customer satisfaction, and integrity. The federal solicitation seeks the dry lease of one Cessna Citation Sovereign Plus aircraft along with maintenance from offerors, with an option for a second aircraft that may or may not be exercised. The requirement is from the Federal Aviation Administration Flight Program Operations Critical Event Response/Transportation Mission located at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, with responses due by January 15th, 2022. The solicitation number is 6973GH-21-R-00094.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
- SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE -
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PAST PERFORMANCE PROJECT INFORMATION (To be filled out by the Offeror):
CONTRACTOR NAME:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
ORDER NUMBER (if applicable):
PROJECT TITLE:
TOTAL PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING OPTIONS : MM/YYYY – MM/YYYY OR Present
TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE:
CONTRACT TYPE:
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED:
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE INFORMATION (To be filled out by the Rater):
NAME:
TITLE:
AGENCY OR CUSTOMER:
PHONE:
E-MAIL:
SIGNATURE OF RATER: (Rater must be provided by a Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative or Corporate Officer with cognizance over the project for the ordering activity.
For each of the six (6) criteria listed below, the rater must choose one (1) Adjectival Rating by checking the box, as applicable. At a minimum, for any rating that is checked as equivalent to unsatisfactory, please submit additional comments to substantiate the rating.
1.
Quality/Timeliness of Service.
a. How would you rate the contractor's general overall compliance with contract requirements?
Considerably surpassed minimum requirements
Exceeded minimum requirements
Met minimum requirements
Less than minimum requirements
b. How would you rate the timeliness of the Contractor's service - delivered reports on time and adhering to the required schedule?
c. Did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely fashion to meet contract requirements?
Provided abundant resources
Provided sufficient resources
Provided minimal resources
Provided insufficient resources
d. Did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely fashion to solve problems?
Provided abundant resources
Provided sufficient resources
Provided minimal resources
Provided insufficient resources
e. How would you rate the contractor on the timeliness of its responses to inquiries or other administrative matters?
Extremely timely
Generally timely
Generally not timely
Seldom timely
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
2.
Cost Control.
a. If applicable, to what extent did the contractor meet the proposed cost estimates?
Less than estimated cost
Comparatively equal to estimate
Exceeded the costs
Considerably surpassed estimate
b. How would you rate the contractor's initiative, if any, in reducing overall costs to the Government?
Extremely efficient
Generally efficient
Generally inefficient
Extremely inefficient
3.
Business Relations - Effective Management.
A. To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from government (or entity with requirement) counterparts?
Considerably successful
Generally successful
Little Success
No success
b. To what extent did the contractor display initiative in meeting contract requirements?
Displayed considerable initiative
Displayed some initiative
Displayed little initiative
Displayed no initiative
c. Was the contractor's selection and use of personnel appropriate for the performance of this contract?
Provided highly qualified personnel
Provided qualified personnel
Provided minimal personnel
Provided insufficient personnel
D. To what extent was the contractor effective in interfacing with the Government's (or other) staff?
Extremely effective
Generally effective
Generally ineffective
e. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default, or is a termination pending?
( ) Yes
( ) No
f. Has it ever been necessary to send this Contractor a Notice to cure letter?
( ) Yes
( ) No
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
g. How would you rate the performance of the contractor's key personnel?
Extremely effective
Generally effective
Generally ineffective
Extremely ineffective
4.
Customer Satisfaction.
a. To what extent did the contractor provide timely assistance, when responding to problems?
b. How would you rate the contractor's response to inquiries related to administrative issues?
Displayed considerable initiative
Displayed some initiative
Displayed little initiative
Displayed no initiative
c. Would you select this contractor again?
( ) Yes ( ) No
5.
Integrity.
a. Did you experience any integrity problems with this Contractor?
( ) Yes ( ) No
b. Did the contractor maintain integrity during contract performance?
( ) Yes ( ) No
6.
Please provide any other comments you may have.
PAGE
SIR 6973GH-21-R-00094
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .