Att J-6 PP Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- J998 - USS SHIP ROH
- Solicitation number
- N6817125R0005
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment J-6) for the USS Mount Whitney (MTW) Regular Overhaul (ROH) solicitation, issued by NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Sigonella. The solicitation (N6817125R0005) seeks competitive offers for ship repair and maintenance utilizing a dry-dock, with the USS Mount Whitney's specifications detailed including a length of 634 M, beam of 108 ft, and an estimated gross tonnage of 18,847 tons.
The questionnaire instructs offerors to request current or former customers to complete and return the past performance questionnaire before the solicitation's closing date, with submission directed to specific Navy contract specialists. The document provides a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing contractor performance across five key areas: quality/contract requirements, timeliness, responsiveness, cost control, and overall contract administration. Contractors will be rated using an adjectival scale ranging from Outstanding to Unacceptable, with the ultimate goal of determining the contractor's suitability for the ship repair and maintenance project.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6817125R0005_AMEND0001.pdf | ||
| Att J-7 VL CIVMARS Hospitality Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att J-4 MSC SHIP REPAIR FACILITY.pdf | ||
| Att J-3 GFM REPORT.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att J-2 Work Item Specifications.pdf | ||
| N6817125R0005_RFP.pdf | ||
| Att J-5 _PP Information.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att J-1 Pricing Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
USS MOUNT WHITNEY (MTW)
REGULAR OVERHAUL (ROH) – N6817125R0005
ATTACHMENT J-6 (Past Performance Questionnaire)
OFFEROR __________________________
NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Sigonella (FLCSI), Code 200 is currently evaluating competitive offers for ship repair and maintenance utilizing a dry-dock to be performed on board of the USS MOUNT WHITNEY (MTW).
The principal dimensions of the USS MTW are as follows:
PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS
| LENGTH |
| 634 M |
| BEAM |
| 108 FT, 00 INCHES |
| DRAFT FULL LOAD (mean) |
| 27 FT |
| ESTIMATED GROSS TONAGE |
| 18,847 TONS |
| DESIGN DEAD WEIGHT |
| 6,439 TONS |
| ESTIMATED ARRIVAL DRAFT |
| 26 FT, 11 INCHES |
| PROJECTED DEPTH (PROPELLER) |
| 28 FT, 11 INCHES |
INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror shall request its current or former customers to complete the Attachment S-6 (Past Performance Questionnaire) and return it before the closing date of this solicitation to the following:
Barnhart, Nicole E, Contract Specialist, email: nicole.e.barnhart.civ@us.navy.mil Guarino, Annamaria, Contract Specialist, email: anna.guarino4.ln@us.navy.mil Maria di Lieto, Contract Specialist, email: maria.dilieto2.ln@us.navy.mil Stamatiades, Elias L, Supervisory Contracting Officer, email: elias.L.stamatiades.civ@us.navy.mil
The name of the Offeror must be indicated at the top of this page.
Any questionnaires received after the proposal due date/time may be considered late and may not be considered in the Offeror’s past performance evaluation. The Government, at its discretion, will determine whether or not questionnaires received after the proposal due date will be considered. Questionnaires submitted directly by the Offeror will be disregarded.
The information provided below will become part of the source selection documentation; however, the name and the content of the questionnaire will not be released to any of the parties. Should you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Contract Specialist, Nicole Barnhart, at: Nicole.e.barnhart.civ@us.navy.mil and Contracting Officer, Elias L. Stamatiades, at: Elias.L.Stamatiades.civ@us.navy.mil.
SECTION A (To Be Completed by the Offeror)
1. Name of Offeror/Contractor: __________________________________________________
Address of Offeror/Contractor: ________________________________________________
2. Contract Number: ___________________________________________
3A. Period of Performance: ______________________________________________________
3B. Place of Performance: _______________________________________________________
4. Detailed Description of Work/Scope of Effort:
| 5. | POC | Name: |
| Address: | ||
| Tel. No.: | ||
| Voice: | ||
| Facsimile: |
| 6. | Method and Date Questionnaire Sent to Current or Former Customer POC: |
| Date: ____________________ | |
| Method: _______________________________ |
SECTION B (To Be Completed by the Evaluator)
1. Name of Evaluator: _______________________________________________________
2. Position Title: __________________________________________________________
3. Administrating Authority/Agency: ___________________________________________
4. Telephone Number: ________________________
5. Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________
6. Background Information
| a. | Detailed description of services: |
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
b. Period of Performance (all years): ____________________________________
c. Total value of the contract (all years): _________________________________
2. Contractor's Past Performance
a. Please answer each of the following questions circling the appropriate letter for each item on the questionnaire correspondent to the adjectival rating below:
Adjectival Rating Description
Outstanding (O) Superior accomplishment of contract requirements and very high customer satisfaction.
Acceptable (A) Fully compliant accomplishment of contract requirements and positive customer satisfaction.
Unacceptable (U) Failure to properly accomplish contract requirements and failure to satisfy customer.
Not Applicable (N) Unable to provide a rating. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.
Please see next page for questions.
Questions: (circle appropriate letter)
(1) Quality/Achieving Contract Requirements: The offeror’s demonstrated history of delivering products and services that met or exceeded the requirements of the contract.
1. Rate the contractor’s demonstrated history of delivering products and services that meet or exceeded the requirements of this contract
O A U N ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. How would you describe your level of customer satisfaction?
O AMSC U N ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(2) Timeliness.
1. Did the Contractor meet/comply with performance schedules?
O A U N _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Rate the timeliness of submission of requested information, Contract Change Order proposals, reports and invoicing.
O A U N
1. Rate the Contractor’s ability to absorb growth and/or new work with no or reasonable impacts to the Delivery Date.
O A U N
(3) Contractor Responsiveness. The offeror’s demonstrated ability to:
1. Respond to customer concerns (Identify specific concerns and the contractor’s resolution)
O A U N
1. Isolate and resolve problems
4. the number and severity of problems,
4. the effectiveness of corrective actions taken,
4. the ability to implement corrective actions on future work.
O A U N
(4) Contractor's cost control. Did the contractor deliver at the agreed-to price/cost? Describe the reasons for changes to contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes, etc.)
O A U N
(5) Were there significant problems with contract administration and/or interpretation of the contract after award? If YES, please explain in the additional comments section below.
Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(6) Would you do business with this company again?
Past Performance Questionnaire
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .