Att 005 - PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.doc
DOC document 75 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 57MM High Explosive Point Detonating Cartridges Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017423R0024
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for solicitation number N00174-23-R-0024. The questionnaire is seeking information about an offeror's performance on a previous contract to support the evaluation of proposals for a new contract to produce 57MM High Explosive - Point Detonating Cartridges for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division. Offerors are required to provide the cartridges, which consist of a high explosive projectile, brass cartridge case loaded with a propellant charge, and an electric primer. The cartridges must function correctly in the 57mm MK 110 Gun Mount. The Navy intends to award a single five-year, firm fixed price, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract and is requesting this past performance information to evaluate offerors' previous contract performance and determine the best value.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 0004.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| N0017423R0024 - Signed.pdf | ||
| Att 003 - Personnel Qualifications Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att 002 - GFP Request Form v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att 006 - DD2345_Military Critical Tech Data Agreement.pdf | ||
| Att 004 - PastPerformanceMatrix.doc | DOC document | |
| Att 007- Non Disclosure-Non Use Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit A - CDRLs A001-A021.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER
N00174-23-R-0024
Offeror’s Name:
Name of agency/activity completing questionnaire:
Name and title of the person completing questionnaire:
Contract Number/Period of Performance: _____________________________________________________
Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:
Brief description of the services provided by the Offeror:
SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE SOLICITATION TO:
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD)
Attn: Gerardo Ilaria e-mail address: Gerardo.ilaria.civ@us.navy.mil
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were highly effective.
Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’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.
NEUTRAL - The Offeror lacks a relevant past performance record or past performance information is not available or cannot be determined. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
| Exceptional |
| vERY gOOD |
| sATISFACTORY |
| mARGINAL |
| uNSATISFACTORY |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The referenced contractor was responsive to the customer’s needs.
The contractor’s personnel were qualified to meet the requirements.
The contractor’s ability to accurately estimate cost.
TIMELINESS
The contractor’s ability to ensure, to the extent of its responsibility, that all tasks were completed within the requested time frame.
TECHNICAL SUCCESS
The contractor had a clear understanding of the tasks detailed in the PWS and/or delivery orders.
The contractor’s ability to complete tasks correctly the first time.
The contractor’s ability to resolve problems.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Did the contractor successfully manage its subcontractors?
Was the contractor’s management effective in controlling cost, schedule and performance requirements?
QUALITY
The contractor’s quality and reliability of services delivered.
OVERALL
Please assign an overall rating for the contractor’s work performed.
PLEASE PROVIDE SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. Would you recommend this contractor for similar contracts? Please explain:
2. Have you experienced special or unique problems with the referenced contractor that the Government should be aware of in making our decision?
PAGE
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .