Attachment 03 PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Weapons Containers and Spare Parts
- Solicitation number
- N0017425R0003
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for Solicitation Number N00174-25-R-0003. The questionnaire requests information about an offeror's past performance on a contract, including the agency/activity completing the questionnaire, a description of the services provided, and ratings in categories such as customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, and quality. The questionnaire instructs the respondent to submit it prior to the closing date of the solicitation.
The related federal contract opportunity is for the manufacture, testing, inspection, palletization, and delivery of undefined metal weapons containers and spare parts, such as shock mounts, foam inserts, cradles, and container dollies, in support of various naval munitions programs. The Navy intends to award multiple five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to responsible small business offerors whose proposals are technically acceptable. Individual delivery orders will be competed and awarded based on best value, using a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or Tradeoff approach.
View the file
Other files
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N00174-25-R-0003
Offeror’s Name:
Name of agency/activity completing questionnaire:
Name and title of the person completing questionnaire:
Contract Number/Period of Performance: _____________________________________________________ Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:
Brief description of the services provided by the Offeror:
SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE SOLICITATION TO:
Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD)
| Attn: Ivy Sasaki |
| e-mail address: ivy.h.sasaki.civ@us.navy.mil |
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 |
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 PWS 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 .