Attachment 1 PPQ.doc
DOC document 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Deployable Armories and Magazines Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017422R0014
About this file
This past performance questionnaire requests performance ratings and feedback for an unnamed contractor. It will be used to evaluate proposals submitted in response to solicitation number N0017422R0014 issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command. The solicitation seeks the manufacturing of deployable armories, portable explosive storage magazines, and associated optional equipment. Products required include pre-engineered deployable standard steel armories, forward operating bases, portable steel storage magazines, earth covered type II magazines, and shipboard watertight magazines to serve as standalone high-security storage facilities for conventional small arms, ammunition, and explosives. Respondents are asked to provide ratings on a scale of exceptional to unsatisfactory for customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, quality, and overall performance. Open-ended questions also request recommendations for future contracts and awareness of any special problems. Responses are due to Emily Rankin at NSWC IHD by the closing date of the solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0017422R0014-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 Pricing_Amendment 1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 Pricing Attachment.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 3 CAP.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit A CDRL Request for Waiver.pdf | ||
| N0017422R0014_Final.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Past Performance Matrix.doc | DOC document | |
| CDRL A002 Monthly Status Report.pdf |
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
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017422R0014
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:
Emily Rankin
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD) e-mail address: Emily.u.rankin.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 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?
PAGE
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .