Attachment_2_-_PPQ_70Z02319RPBM00100.doc

58 KB Posted

Attached to
Tank Vessel Inspector Course (Training)
Solicitation number
70Z02319RPBM00100
Issued by

About this file

From the source

Past Performance

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Attachement_3_PerformanceTestChecklist_70Z02319RPBM00100.pdf PDF
RFP_Amendment_2_70Z02319RPBM00100.pdf PDF
Questions_&_Answers_70Z02319RPBM00100.pdf PDF
Amendment_1-Extend_Closing_Date_RFP_70Z02319RPBM00100.pdf PDF
Attachement_1_-_Schedule_of_Services_70Z02319RPBM00100.xls XLS spreadsheet
RFP_70Z02319RPBM00100_Tank_Vessel_Inspector_Course.pdf 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
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire

RFP 70Z02319RPBM00100

The United States Coast Guard (USCG), Office of Acquisitions (CG-9121) is soliciting responses under RFP No. 70Z02319RPBM00100 to provide administrative and training support services for the Tank Vessel Inspector Course (TVIC) (250540). In order to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance history of this Offeror.

Upon completion of this form, please submit via e-mail to: Shawna.L.Mitchell@uscg.mil and Terri.L.Hilton@uscg.mil no later than 12:00 PM ET on April 30, 2019, which is the closing date of the solicitation.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

EXCEPTIONAL
Performance EXCEEDS MOST contractual requirements. The performance of areas being assessed were accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.
VERY GOOD
Performance EXCEEDS SOME contractual requirements. The performance of areas being assessed were accomplished with few minor issues or concerns, for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were highly effective.
SATISFACTORY
Performance MEETS contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed contain minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
MARGINAL
Performance MEETS SOME contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed include significant problems, issues, or concerns for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were only somewhat effective.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance DOES NOT MEET contractual requirement. The performance of the areas being assessed include serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
NOT APPLICABLE
Performance information not recent or relevant as defined in the Solicitation. Unable to provide assessment.

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

CONTRACT NUMBER

CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE
CONTRACT TYPE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PERFORMED:

NAME OF EVALUATOR:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

AGENCY NAME:

ADDRESS:

Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.

Performance Elements

E
VG
S
M
U
NA
1.
Quality of Technical Approach

(Were the services comprehensive, complete and feasible?)

2.
Understanding of Requirements

(Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements?)

3.
Effective and Efficient use of Resources

(Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4.
Timeliness of Performance

(Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

5.
Quality of Performance/Customer Satisfaction

(Was the contractor successful in delivering the quality service as required and was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6.
Business Behavior

(Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7.
Communication

(Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting offices, CORs, government sponsors, users, project stakeholders and other contractors.)

8.
Cost Control

(Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)

9
How would you rate the contractor's overall performance?
10.
Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “Supplemental Comment Form”.
YES/NO
11.
Is the contractor rated in CPARS?
YES/NO

Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding the performance ratings in the space below.

PAGE

File details come from the government source that posted it.