Attachment (5) Past Performance Questionnaire (20211005).docx
DOCX document 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Dock-Side: USCGC JAMES FY22 DS1
- Solicitation number
- 70Z08522QP4504300
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract solicitation. The past performance questionnaire seeks input on a contractor's previous work on a Coast Guard cutter dock-side availability to evaluate its performance for a current solicitation. It requests ratings and narratives in categories such as technical performance, quality, schedule, cost, and regulatory compliance. The federal contract solicitation is for a dock-side availability for the Coast Guard Cutter JAMES in fiscal year 2022. Responses are due by November 2, 2021. Interested parties must meet specifications and submission requirements outlined in the documents and provide all required information in the specified format. The solicitation is issued by the Coast Guard on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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 Questionnaire | Attachment (5) |
| Solicitation No. 70Z08522QP4504300 |
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
This Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) seeks to determine whether the following contract is relevant (size/scope/complexity) to the current USCGC JAMES FQ2 FY22 Dock-Side availability (RFQ: 70Z08522QP4504300). You were identified by the Offeror below as the POC for the contract this questionnaire pertains to. Your responses below will assist the U.S. Coast Guard evaluators in making a sound confidence rating for this record. Please complete the brief description of support and PPQ ratings below and return it via email with Subject “PPQ - 70Z08522QP4504300 JAMES FYQ2 FY22)” to david.a.humfleet@uscg.mil. Questionnaires must be received not later than 6:00 PM Eastern Time Tuesday, 02 November 2021. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Offeror name:
Project name and contract/task order number:
Brief description of support provided:
Total period of performance (Dates): From: To:
Total cost/price:
Name and Title of Point of Contact (POC):
Email Address:
Telephone number:
Date PPQ completed:
Rating Scale & Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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 constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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 |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted 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 |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes 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 reports, or letters). |
Please BOLD the rating IAW the chart above to indicate how the Offeror performed on this contract. Please provide a supporting narrative for each rating. See the chart above for the justification requirements for each rating:
1. Overall Technical Performance
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 2. | Quality of work |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 3. | Schedule Performance |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 4. | Cost Performance |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 5. | Small Business Relations |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 6. | Management |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 7. | Regulatory Compliance |
| Exceptional | |
| Very Good | |
| Satisfactory | |
| Marginal | |
| Unsatisfactory | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
| 8. | Overall Contractual Performance |
| Excellent | |
| Very Good | |
| Good | |
| Fair | |
| Poor | |
| N/A |
Supporting Narrative:
9. Did the contractor proactively identify risk areas, mitigate risks, and respond to emergency and critical situations? |_|Yes |_|No
10. Would you use this company again? |_|Yes |_|No
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .