Attachment 02 Past Performance Questionnaire 26R1003.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0017425RFPREQIHDMDept0002
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed for the MASA (Manufacturing & Services Acquisition) Manufacturing Support RFP N0017426R1003. The questionnaire is intended to be completed by the offeror's customers rather than the offeror itself, with the exception of the "Contract Information" section which the offeror may complete for convenience. Completed questionnaires must be submitted directly by the customer point of contact to the Contract Specialist, Diane Hicks (diane.d.hicks.civ@us.navy.mil), on or before the proposal due date. The questionnaire addresses past performance records not contained in CPARS and will be used to determine whether each offeror's past performance is acceptable or unacceptable rather than to assign rankings.
The questionnaire evaluates contractors across five core areas: customer satisfaction (responsiveness, personnel qualifications, and cost estimation accuracy); timeliness (task completion within requested timeframes); technical success (understanding of SOW requirements, first-time task completion, and problem resolution); program management (subcontractor management and cost/schedule/performance control); and quality (reliability and quality of services delivered). Ratings are assigned using a six-point scale: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, and Neutral. The template also includes sections for an overall rating and subjective responses regarding contractor recommendation and any special or unique problems the Government should consider during source selection.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 26R1003 Amendment 0003 MASA.pdf | ||
| 26R1003 Amendment 0002 MASA.pdf | ||
| 26R1003 Amdndment 0001 MASA.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) DD Form 1423 A001-A010.pdf | ||
| Attachment 01 Past Performance Reference 26R1003.docx | DOCX document | |
| 26R1003 MASA RFP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 04 - Proposal Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 03 Contract Administration Plan (CAP).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
N0017426R1003 Attachment 02
MASA RFP
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017426R1003
In order to expedite the assessment process, the Offeror may complete the “Contract Information” portion of the Past Performance Questionnaire for the convenience of the customer POC. The Offeror shall not, however, complete any other section of the Past Performance Questionnaire.
The questionnaire shall be provided to the customer POC with instructions to complete and submit it directly to the Contract Specialist, Diane Hicks at diane.d.hicks.civ@us.navy.mil on or before the proposal due date. This questionnaire is only for past performance records not contained in CPARS.
The Contract Specialist will confirm receipt of questionnaires received.
The Past Performance Questionnaire includes questions on (1) customer satisfaction; (2) timeliness; (3) technical success; (4) program management; and (5) quality. The Government will not assign a rank to the Past Performance factor but will determine the acceptable or unacceptable nature of the past performance for each Offeror based on the information provided and review of other sources of past performance information available to the Government.
THIS SECTION MAY BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR
Offeror’s Name:
Contract Number: ____________________________________________
Period of Performance: ____________________________________________
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR’S CUSTOMER
Name and title of the person completing questionnaire, as well as agency/activity supported:
Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:
Brief description of the services provided by the Offeror:
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 |
| NEUTRAL |
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 SOW 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?
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .