Attachment 2 - OPPD.docx

DOCX document 23 KB Posted

Attached to
Virtual Machine (VM) Development for NATO Courses Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
N0024426QS006
Issued by
Department of the Navy Naval Supply Systems Command

About this file

This is an Offeror's Past Performance Data form (OPPD) template designed to collect and evaluate contractor performance on previous relevant contracts. The form serves as a standardized evaluation instrument for assessing past performance in response to the solicitation N00244-26-Q-S006 for Virtual Machine Development supporting NATO Courses. The document is classified as Source Selection Sensitive Information per FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

The form captures contract identification information including solicitation number, contractor details, CAGE code, contract number, contract type, competitive acquisition status, and period of performance with associated costs. It requires evaluator identification (name, title, organization, contact information) and assessment of three experience elements: quality of items, timeliness of delivery, and cost savings/avoidance. The core evaluation section uses a five-point risk rating scale (A through F, plus Neutral) to assess nine program management criteria addressing contract management effectiveness, customer cooperation, problem resolution, technical compliance, emergency responsiveness, subcontractor quality, data integrity, process improvements, and alternative solutions. Four additional cost performance criteria evaluate cost forecasting accuracy, budget compliance, advance notification of cost overruns, and reporting sufficiency. The form includes a narrative summary section requiring evaluators to document contractor strengths, weaknesses, reservations about future engagement, and general performance comments. This template is used by government evaluators to provide documented past performance assessments that inform source selection decisions for new contract awards.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Virtual Machine (VM) Development for NATO Courses, newest first.
File Type Posted
Questions and Answers.docx DOCX document
N00244-26-Q-S006 RFQ.pdf PDF
Attachment 1 - Pricing.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet

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

N00244-26-Q-S006 Virtual Machine Development

OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

When filled in, this document is Source Selection Sensitive Information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Solicitation Number:

B. Contractor:

C. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to:

D. Contract number:

E. Contract type:

F. Was this a competitive acquisition? Yes __ No __

G. Period of performance:

I. Initial contract cost:

J. Current/final contract cost:

K. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

L. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name:

B. Evaluator's title:

C. Evaluator’s organization:

D. Evaluator's phone/fax number/email address:

E. Additional Point of Contact and phone number:

SECTION 3: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

EXPERIENCE ELEMENT
Significant
Moderate
Minimal
None

Quality of Items

Timeliness of Delivery

Cost Savings/Avoidance

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. The scale is defined as follows:

RISK RATING

A – The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, highly effective. Performance of completed contracts either was consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

B - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance over completed contracts either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

C - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the contractor were, or are expected to be, for the most part effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

D - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet some contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance reflected some serious problems for which the contractor either failed to identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be implemented were, or are expected to be, only partially effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of mediocre quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance might be difficult to achieve or that it can occur only with increased levels of government management and oversight.

F - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur with the period of performance. The assessed prior performance reflected serious problem(s) for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions or for which corrective actions, implemented, or proposed to be implemented, were, or are expected to be, mostly ineffective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance will not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of government management and oversight.

Neutral - The offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance based on the offeror’s past performance record.

Program Management

RATING
A
B
C
D
F
N

P1. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

P2. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

P3. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

P4. Ability to understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements

P5. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

P6. Quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts

P7. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts

P8. Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

P9. Contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support.

Cost Performance C1 Accuracy in forecasting contract costs

C2 Ability to meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs

C3 Ability to alert Government of unforeseen costs before they occur

C4 Sufficiency and timeliness of cost reporting

C5 Contractor’s demonstrated compliance with a subcontracting plan

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Would you have any reservation about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Yes__No___ If yes, provide explanation: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

_______________________________________________
Evaluator’s SignatureDate

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .