Att 6_PP Questionnaire_N0017325RML01.pdf
PDF 187 KB Posted
- Attached to
- High Assurance Computer Systems Security
- Solicitation number
- N0017325RML01
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity. The key details are:
The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has requested that the respondent complete this questionnaire to provide feedback on the past performance of the identified contractor. The questionnaire covers various aspects of the contractor's performance, including technical, schedule, cost, and management performance. The respondent is asked to rate the contractor's performance in these areas using a scale of Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, Very Good, or Exceptional, and to provide comments to substantiate any Exceptional or Unsatisfactory ratings.
The related federal contract opportunity is for High Assurance Computer Systems Security, which involves scientific, engineering, technical, analytical, and project management support for NRL research programs. The contract is a re-compete effort for the current contract N00173-21-F-2015, which was awarded to Arcfield, Inc. (formerly Peraton, Inc.). The Government anticipates awarding a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee task orders.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0017325RML01_A0002 FE.pdf | ||
| N0017323RML01_A0002 QA.pdf | ||
| N0017325RML01_A0002 Conformed.pdf | ||
| N0017325RML01_A0001 Conformed.pdf | ||
| N0017325RML01_A0001 QA.pdf | ||
| N0017325RML01_A0001_FE.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A_CDRLs_N0017325RML01.pdf | ||
| Att 1_SOW_IDIQ_N0017325RML01.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att 4_Req for On-Site KTRs_N0017325RML01.pdf | ||
| Att 10_Offeror Questions Form_N0017325RML01.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Att 3_DD254_N0017325RML01_.pdf | ||
| Att 7_Cost Proposal Format_N0017325RML01 02OCT24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att 8_SB Commitment Doc_N0017325RML01.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - N0017325RML01.pdf | ||
| Att 5_PQs_N0017325RML01.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment9_Pre-Award Survey_N0017325RML01.pdf | ||
| Att 2_SOW_TaskOrder_N0017325RML01_.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 17
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
EXCEPTIONAL
MARGINAL
2. SUBCONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT TO
NRLINST 4200.15
INSTRUCTIONS: The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) requests that you complete this questionnaire and provide your feedback to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor identified below. In an effort to expedite receipt of the requested information, please do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: Morgan Lynch; morgan.d.lynch.civ@us.navy.mil no later than HH:MM Eastern Standard Time, on: XX/XX/XXXX
I. CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. CONTRACTOR NAME
3. CONTRACT NUMBER
5. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
8. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT (Use additional sheets as needed)
7. CURRENT CONTRACT COST/PRICE6. INITIAL CONTRACT COST/PRICE
4. CONTRACT TYPE
HQ-NRL 4335/2 (6-14)(Front) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104 -- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
II. RATINGS
RATING
UNSATISFACTORY
SATISFACTORY
VERY GOOD
DEFINITION
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.
Performance does not meet 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.
Performance barely meets some of the contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
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
III. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
A. TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE: What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor's ability to meet the technical requirements?
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
PRODUCT ASSURANCE - Assess the Contractor's technical performance in the following areas:
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
B. SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE: Rate the Contractor's ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed) rsavelli Text Box Attachment 6
N/A
D. MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE: What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor's management performance?
UNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
COST PERFORMANCE
ADHERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL
COST ESTIMATE TARGETS?
DID THE CONTRACTOR CONTROL
SUBCONTRACTING COST?
DID THE CONTRACTOR OVERRUN
THE CONTRACT?
DID THE CONTRACTOR UNDERRUN
THE CONTRACT?
C. COST CONTROL: Rate the Contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost and provide reasons for changes to the contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes)
YES NO YES NOYES NOYES NO
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/A
ASSESS THE CONTRACTOR'S MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
UNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
RESPONSIVENESS - Timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification.
QUALITY - Ability to provide a product or service that met your required level of quality.
SOCIOECONOMIC GOALS - Ability to meet any applicable subcontracting goals for utilization of Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HUBZone and Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI).
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness of integration and coordination of all activities required to execute.
SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Timely award and management of subcontractors..
SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Ability to meet the goals of the subcontracting plan, to include timely award and management.
MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL - Performance in selecting, supporting and replacing - when necessary -key personnel.
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
E. TERMINATION HISTORY:
HQ-NRL 4335/2 (6-14)(Back) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104 -- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PREPARED BY
COMMENTS (Use additional sheets as needed)
F. RECOMMENDATION: Would you recommend selection of this company for future awards? Explain.
NAME/TITLE
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
ORGANIZATION E-MAIL ADDRESS
PHONE
CONVENIENCE
YES, I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS CONTRACTOR FOR
FUTURE AWARDS.
N/ADEFAULT
NO, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS CONTRACTOR
FOR FUTURE AWARDS.
(ext.)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .