Att 2 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ATGHS Sigonella, Siciliy, Italy
- Solicitation number
- N6817123R0009
About this file
This past performance questionnaire requests information about air terminal and ground handling services previously provided at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. The contractor is to facilitate on-time aircraft departures and maintain the ability to provide sustained services for up to three wide-body aircraft. The Navy's Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Sigonella seeks these services under solicitation N6817123R0009 to support the Defense Transportation System for US government, sponsored foreign governments, and NATO aircraft. The questionnaire asks the reference to evaluate the previous contractor's performance quality, timeliness, customer satisfaction, and adherence to contract terms, and provide an overall assessment of performance through signature and date.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6817123R0009-0005.pdf | ||
| N6817123R0009-0004.pdf | ||
| N6817123R0009-0003.pdf | ||
| N6817123R0009-0002.pdf | ||
| N6817123R0009_AMD 0001.pdf | ||
| Att 1 Past Performance Information.doc | DOC document | |
| Att 3 CLINs Pricing Matrix.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| N6817123R0009.docx | DOCX document |
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
Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Sigonella is currently evaluating competitive offers for Air Terminal and Ground Handling Services (ATGHS) in support of the Defense Transportation System to include, but not limited to, all US Government-owned or operated aircraft, US-sponsored foreign Government or civil aircraft, Coalition Forces aircraft, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Strategic Airlift Capability Heavy Airlift Wing (HAW) aircraft, commercial contract aircraft, and commercial tendered aircraft, at primarily the Naval Air Station (NAS) Sigonella (military) and occasionally at the Italian Military Ramp in Sigonella, Italy. The Contractor shall facilitate on-time aircraft departures and maintain the ability to provide sustained ATGHS for a Working Maximum on Ground (WMOG) capability of three wide-body aircraft.
You have been named as a point of contact for services previously provided by the contractor cited herein. Please provide the information requested in the questionnaire. The information you provide will become part of the source selection documentation; however, your name will not be released to any of the parties. Should you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Ms. Filomena A. De Stefano in Naples, Italy at Tel 0039 081-568-4083 or e-mail at Filomena.DeStefano.ln3@us.navy.mil. You may also contact Danielle Lafferty at 0039 081-568-3778 by telephone or email at danielle.v.lafferty.civ@us.navy.mil with any questions.
(To be completed by NAVSUP FLC)
Contractor:
Address:
(To be completed by person to whom questionnaire is addressed):
1. Background Information
a. Name of person completing this questionnaire and position.
| Name: | _______________________________________ | |
| Tel No. | _______________________________________ | |
| E-mail Address: | _______________________________________ |
b. Contract No: ___________________________
| c. | Description of service: ___________________________________________________________ |
| _______________________________________________________________________________ | |
| _______________________________________________________________________________ |
d. Period of Performance (all years): ____________________________________
e. Total value of the contract (all years): __________________________________
2. Please select a rating in answer to each of the following questions and provide comments as appropriate.
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being evaluated 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 customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element 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 contractual performance of the 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. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
1. How would you rate the quality of services received?
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
2. How would you rate the timeliness of the services received?
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| 3. | How would you rate customer satisfaction? |
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| 4. | To what extent did the contractor’s performance conform to the terms and conditions of the contract? |
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
5. To what extent was the contractor reasonable and cooperative during performance (including cooperating with successor contractor, if applicable)?
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
| 6. | Overall evaluation comments: | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
Signature and Date
Source Selection Information - see FAR 3.104 Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .