Attachment 02 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FDRMC ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- N6817126RN005
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire designed to evaluate contractor performance on previous similar work for the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center Sigonella. The questionnaire is part of the source selection documentation for solicitation N6817126RN005, which seeks competitive offers for Engineering Support Services to be provided to the Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center (FDRMC) and ships within its area of responsibility. The services required include Engineering Technicians in specialties such as Mechanical Auxiliary, Mechanical Hydraulics, Marine Gas Turbine Inspector, and Combat Systems support, as well as Depot and Intermediate Maintenance Support and Production Controllers including planners and technical integrators.
The questionnaire requests that references familiar with the contractor's past performance provide information regarding contract number, service description, period of performance, and total contract value. Respondents evaluate the contractor's work by rating relevancy across scope, magnitude, and complexity on a scale from Very Relevant to Not Relevant, and assess performance confidence levels on five criteria: quality of services, timeliness, customer satisfaction, conformance to contract terms and conditions, and contractor cooperation. Confidence ratings range from Substantial Confidence to Unknown Confidence. The questionnaire includes definitions for all rating levels and concludes with an overall evaluation rating and signature block. Responses are treated as confidential source selection information, with names of respondents withheld from competing parties. Government points of contact are Ricardo Lopez and Dave Biggs at Naval Supply Systems Command.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 10 CDRL_A0004_TRIP REPORT.pdf | ||
| Attachment 05 Support for Unloaded Labor Rates and Costs.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 08 CDRL_A0002_ROSTER.pdf | ||
| Attachment 07 CDRL_A0001_CO MGMT REPORT.pdf | ||
| Attachment 01 Past Performance Information.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 09 CDRL_A0003_ODC REPORT.pdf | ||
| Attachment 04 Calculation of Indirect Costs.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 03 DD Form 254_ENG.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - N6817126RN005.pdf | ||
| Attachment 06 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.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
N6817126RN005
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Sigonella is currently evaluating competitive offers for Engineering Support Services. The Contractor will provide the Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center (FDRMC) with engineering services in support of FDRMC and various ships in the FDRMC area of responsibility (AOR) as follows:
· Engineering Technicians (for example, but not limited to Mechanical Auxiliary, Mechanical Hydraulics, Marine Gas Turbine Inspector, Combat Systems-CANES/Afloat Network, Combat Systems-SPY, and METCAL Program)
· Depot and Intermediate Maintenance Support/Production Controllers (for example, but not limited to D Level Planner, IMA Planner, and Dive Planner, Fleet Technical Assistance Integrator, Planner) 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 Mr. Ricardo Lopez in Naples, Italy at ricardo.a.lopez38.civ@us.navy.mil and Dave Biggs at david.a.biggs20.civ@us.navy.mil.
(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: | _______________________________________ | |
| 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. Contractor's Past Performance
a. In your opinion, is the work performed under your contract is similar in scope, size and complexity as the work described below:
Please circle one of the four levels of relevancy:
RATING
| VR R SR NR |
| Scope |
| VR R SR NR |
| Magnitude |
| VR R SR NR |
| Complexity |
| VR= Very Relevant |
| R = Relevant |
| SR= Somewhat Relevant |
| NR= Not Relevant |
| Scope: | Range of operations covered | ||
| Magnitude: | Dollar value | ||
| Complexity: | Degree of difficulty |
| Comments: | _______________________________________________________________________ | |
| _______________________________________________________________________ |
The definitions for relevancy ratings are as follows:
| Very Relevant: | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same | |
| scope, magnitude of efforts, and complexities this solicitation | ||
| requires. |
| Relevant: | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope, | |
| magnitude of efforts, and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant: | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope, | |
| magnitude of efforts, and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant: | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, | |
| magnitude of efforts, and complexities this solicitation requires. |
b. Please circle a rating in answer to each of the following questions and provide comments as appropriate.
1. How would you rate the quality of services received?
| Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence | Unknown |
| Confidence Confidence | Confidence Confidence |
| Comments: | ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
The definitions for confidence ratings are as follows:
Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
2. How would you rate the timeliness of the services received?
| Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence | Unknown | |
| Confidence Confidence | Confidence Confidence |
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
3. How would you rate customer satisfaction?
| Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence | Unknown | |
| Confidence Confidence | Confidence Confidence |
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
4. To what extent did the contractor’s performance conform to the terms and conditions of the contract/employment?
| Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence | Unknown | |
| Confidence Confidence | Confidence Confidence |
| Comments: ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
5. To what extent was the contractor reasonable and cooperative during performance (including cooperating with successor contractor)?
| Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence | Unknown | |
| Confidence Confidence | Confidence Confidence |
| Comments: _______________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | |
| ________________________________________________________________ |
| c. | Overall evaluation comments: | |
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ | ||
| ________________________________________________________________ |
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Cont’d)
OVERALL RATING
□ SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
□ SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
□ LIMITED CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
□ NO CONFIDENCE: No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
□ UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
Signature and Date
Source Selection Information see FAR 3.104 Past Performance Questionnaire
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .