Solicitation_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 76 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z080-19-Q-P4503600
About this file
Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
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
Attachment 4 – Past Performance Questionnaire
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. COAST GUARD
SURFACE FORCES LOGISTICS CENTER (SFLC)
MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER PRODUCT LINE (MECpl)
300 EAST MAIN STREET
nOROLK, VA 23510 Solicitation: 70Z08019QP4503600
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
In order to assess potential vendors, the MECPL contracting office is obtaining past performance information with respect to each offeror. This PPQ must be completed by the Past Performance Reference, NOT the Offeror, and submitted directly to the Contract Specialist by the Past Performance Reference. The completed PPQ shall not be released to the offeror. In addition to this questionnaire, you may receive a follow-up phone call to confirm or clarify information. We are thanking you in advance for your time, effort, and cooperation in responding to this questionnaire. Please submit the completed form to Pamela Nelson, Contract Specialist via email at pamela.t.nelson@uscg.mil . Please contact Ms. Nelson at (757) 628-4652 if you have any questions. The completed PPQ is due on or before October 08, 2018 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time.
I. GENERAL GUIDANCE
Please use the following rating in scoring the performance elements below (assessments should reflect only contractor-liable performance):
| RATING |
| DESCRIPTION |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
AGENCY & RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION:
| 1 |
| Name: |
| 2 |
| Title: |
| 3 |
| Organization: |
| 4 |
| Address: |
| 5 |
| Phone Number: |
| 6 |
| Fax Number: |
| 7 |
| E-mail Address: |
| 8 |
| Date: |
| 9 |
| Signature: |
B.
CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION:
| 1 |
| Name of Contractor: |
| 1 |
| Type of Instrument |
(e.g. Contract/BPA/Order/Other):
| 2 |
| Contract Identification Number: |
| 3 |
| Order Number (If applicable): |
| 4 |
| Project Title and Service Description (Add rows if needed): |
| 5 |
| Type of Contract |
(e.g. Negotiated, Sealed Bid):
| 6 |
| Pricing Type (e.g. Fixed Price, T&M, |
Cost Reimbursement, other):
| 7 |
| Date of Award: |
| 8 |
| Contract Dollar Value/Ceiling: |
| 9 |
| Period of Performance: |
| 10 |
| Place(s) of Performance: |
C.
GENERAL INFORMATION
| 1 |
| Has this Contractor ever failed to provide services required by the contract? If yes, explain. |
III. EVALUATION: How Would You Rate This Contractor With Respect To:
A. Quality. Compliance with the SOW and specifications; conformance to standards of good workmanship, and responsiveness to technical direction:
| Rating |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
Check (
Summary:
B. Schedule. Adherence to the contract delivery schedule:
| Rating |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
Check (
Summary:
C. Management. Working relationship with Contracting Officer, COR, and other points of contact:
| Rating |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
Check (
Summary:
In summary, if you care to, please give your overall assessment of this contractor.
Do you have additional comments to add?
File details come from the government source that posted it.