Attachment 0002 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 15 KB Posted Mar 12, 2020

Attached to: AWSM Zone 3 Solicitation - Amendment 0004 Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: W56HZV-20-R-L805
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command TACOM Life Cycle Management Command

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 30, 2023

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluation of contract performance. It includes eight questions regarding a contractor's compliance with technical requirements, quality standards, project and schedule management, timeliness, cost control, and customer satisfaction on a previous government contract. Respondents are asked to rate performance in these areas as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unsatisfactory and provide comments for any marginal or unsatisfactory ratings.

The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation from the Army Contracting Command - Detroit Arsenal for pier-side un-programmed maintenance, emergency repair, modification and modernization services for the U.S. Army vessel fleet under the Army Watercraft Sustainment Maintenance contract in Zone 3. The single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract has a one year base period and four one-year options and seeks contractors capable of performing these services for Army watercraft located in the Zone 3 geographic area.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to AWSM Zone 3 Solicitation - Amendment 0004, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
SF30 W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0004.pdf	PDF	May 13, 2020
W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0004 Conformed.pdf	PDF	May 13, 2020
Attachment 0003 _Zone 3_Pricing Attachment Rev 02.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 13, 2020
W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0003 Conformed.pdf	PDF	May 5, 2020
SF 30 W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0003.pdf	PDF	May 5, 2020
Attachment 0003 _Zone 3_Pricing Attachment Rev 01.XLSX	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 23, 2020
W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0002 Conformed.pdf	PDF	Apr 23, 2020
SF 30 W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0001.pdf	PDF	Apr 23, 2020
SF 30 W56HZV-20-R-L805 Amd 0002.pdf	PDF	Apr 23, 2020
Amendment 0001 Zone 3 Conformed.pdf	PDF	Mar 27, 2020
Attachment 0001 Army Watercraft System- Rev 01.pdf	PDF	Mar 27, 2020
Attachment 0002 Past Performance Questionnaire rev 01.docx	DOCX document	Mar 27, 2020
RFP W56HZV-20-R-L805 (Zone 3 Pierside) .pdf	PDF	Mar 12, 2020
Exhibit A- Pierside CDRLS.PDF	PDF	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0001 Army Vessel Fleet.pdf	PDF	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0006 SBP-WorkbookInstructions (27 Mar 2019).pdf	PDF	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0003 Zone 3_Pricing Attachment.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0004 Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0007 SBP-Certification-Subcontractor.docx	DOCX document	Mar 12, 2020
Attachment 0005 SBP-Workbook (27 Mar 2019).xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 12, 2020

Show all 20

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

1. Compliance with Technical Data Package (TDP) To what extent was the contractor compliant in following a TDP? Did the contractor comply with all drawing requirements, unless a deviation from the drawings was approved by the Government? Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Good Acceptable Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Comments:

2. Quality Management - Standards of Good Workmanship, Final Inspection, and Delivery To what extent was the contractor compliant in standards of good workmanship, i.e. quality controls, adhering to paint or welding requirements, satisfying the performance requirement? Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

3. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

To what extent was the contractor effective in managing the program, including its employees and subcontractors, on an overall basis? Control of subcontractors includes the selection and management as well as the verification of a final product from a subcontractor. Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

4. Effectiveness of Management of Program/Project Schedule (to include use and control of subcontractors).

To what extent was the contractor effective in managing the program/project schedule, to include any controls put in place to manage the schedule and on an overall basis? Were projects managed effectively from beginning to end to meet the initial period of performance? Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

5. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

To what extent did the contractor adhere to the delivery schedules, on an overall basis? Did the contractor effectively manage the ordering and delivery of required materials to complete on schedule? Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

6. Controlled Costs within Contracted Totals.

Did the contractor effectively manage to control costs on contract? Were requests for over and above work fair and reasonable? Please check one answer and provide an explanation for your rating.

7. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest To what extent was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction and its customers’ interest?

8. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Mar 12, 2020.