70Z08526QLREP0011 Attachment 4 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Dockside (DS): USCGC MIDGETT FY26 Repair
- Solicitation number
- 70Z08526QLREP0011
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for the USCGC MIDGETT (WMSL 757) FY26 Dockside Repairs solicitation. The questionnaire is designed to collect information from offerors regarding their relevant past performance on similar ship repair contracts. As a template document, it does not contain specific performance requirements or evaluation criteria details, but rather serves as the standardized form that potential contractors must complete and submit with their quotes. Respondents are expected to provide historical data demonstrating their experience with dockside ship repairs, particularly those involving similar vessel types and scope of work comparable to the Coast Guard cutter repair requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement. The completed questionnaire will be used by the government to evaluate contractor capability and reliability in executing the dockside repair work, which includes labor, materials, services, equipment, and associated support work as specified in Attachment 2 of the solicitation.
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
Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)
1. The USCG Form PPQ shall be utilized for all evaluations that require a Past Performance Questionnaire.
2. USCGC MIDGETT Q4, FY26 Dockside Solicitation No.: 70Z08526QLREP0011
“Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor II, Past Performance. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.
IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contacts.
Fill out the first 2 blocks and submit to customers to complete, utilizing the attached Rating Guidelines. Have your customer send their questionnaire response directly via email to Jaime Diaz at Jaime.Diaz3@uscg.mil with a cc to Andrew Jacobs at Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil referencing the solicitation number and your company name in the subject line.
Offerors are responsible for ensuring that questionnaires reach the intended destination by the close date and time of the solicitation through confirmation with customers. Questionnaires received after the close date and time of the solicitation will not be reviewed and/or considered. Offerors shall not seek confirmation of receipt from the Government.
PAST PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER QUESTIONNAIRE
70Z08526QLREP0011
(2 pages)
1.OFFEROR FIRM/ORGANIZATION: (enter your shipyard’s name)
| 2. | ||
| PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: (from) | (to) |
CONTRACTING OFFICE:
CONTRACT NUMBER: TASK NO:
CUSTOMER ORGANIZATION:
CUSTOMER POC:
CUSTOMER PHONE NO.
ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:
CONTRACT AWARD DATE:
CONTRACT VALUE (final value): $
TYPE OF CONTRACT:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT (Title):
QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE: (Rating ___) Additional Comments on Rating:
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE: (Rating ___) Additional Comments on Rating:
BUSINESS RELATIONS: (Rating ___) Additional Comments on Rating:
Signature (Customer)
RATING GUIDELINES FOR CUSTOMERS
Summarize contractor performance in each of the rating areas. Assign each area a rating of
0 (Unsatisfactory) 1 (Poor) 2 (Fair) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent) 5 (Outstanding) Use the following instructions as guidance in making these evaluations.
| Criteria: |
| Quality of Product or Service |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Business Relations |
* Compliance with contract requirements
* Accuracy of reports
* Effectiveness of personnel
* Technical excellence
* Met interim milestones
* Reliability
* Responsive to technical direction
* Completed on time including wrap-up and contract administration
* Met delivery schedules
* No liquidated damages assessed
* Effective management, including subcontracts
* Reasonable/cooperative behavior
* Responsive to contract requirements
* Notification of problems
* Flexibility
* Pro-active vs reactive
| 0 – Unsatisfactory |
| Nonconformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Customer resources |
| Delays are jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Customer resources |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is not effective |
| 1 – Poor |
| Overall compliance requires major Customer resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Delays require major Customer resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is marginally effective |
| 2 - Fair |
| Overall compliance requires minor Customer resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Delays require minor Customer resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective |
| 3 - Good |
| Overall compliance does not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Delays do not impact achievement of contract requirements |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is usually effective |
| 4 - Excellent |
| There are no quality problems |
| There are no delays |
| Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is always effective |
5 - Outstanding - The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level in any of the above three categories that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."
70Z08526RLREP0011
Attachment 4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .