Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Northwest Hawaiian Islands Vessel Charter
- Solicitation number
- 1305M320QNCNM0039
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a contractor providing services to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The questionnaire requests ratings on quality, cost control, timeliness, ability to meet special needs, subcontractor management, and warranty performance on a scale of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory. It must be returned by June 4, 2020 to Noah Nielsen at the provided email for consideration in solicitation 1305M320QNCNM0039. This solicitation requires vessel charter services to support research and monitoring in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including transit to study locations, meal and berthing accommodations, and operations during the coral reef damage assessment project.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A0002 1305M320QNCNM0039.pdf | ||
| A0001 1305M320QNCNM0039.pdf | ||
| 1305M320QNCNM0039.pdf |
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 REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Solicitation 1305M320QNCNM0039
Contractor:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user, etc.):
Rating Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
Exceptional (E)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or subelement being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| To justify an “exceptional” rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
Very Good
(VG)
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| To justify a “very good” rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
Satisfactory (S)
| Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be or were satisfactory. |
| To justify a “satisfactory” rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than “satisfactory” solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
Marginal (M)
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A “marginal” rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or subelement contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits an “unsatisfactory” rating. An “unsatisfactory” rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter. |
INDEX
Section I – Ratings Section II – Additional Narrative Justification Section III – Return Instructions Section IV – Contact Information
Please provide any relevant information to support the above ratings.
<Note: When completing this questionnaire by e-mail, please do not use a color, such as red, to select the rating in section I of this questionnaire. Color fonts do not show well when printed. Just bold it, underline it, or increase the font size in black.>
Section I
Contractor Performance
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided?
Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
Response
E VG S M U N/A
2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs?
E VG S M U N/A
3. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness of the products/services delivered?
E VG S M U N/A
4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as expedited delivery or crisis support) for delivery requirements?
E VG S M U N/A
5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?
E VG S M U N/A
6. How would you rate the performance of the contractor’s warranty/maintenance?
E VG S M U N/A
7. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the contractor’s performance?
Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
E VG S M U N/A
Section II
Additional Supporting Narrative, if required: <Include the number of the question to which this supporting narrative applies. Additional pages may be used.>
Section III
Return the completed questionnaire via e-mail to: noah.nielsen@noaa.gov
Please return the completed questionnaire by June 4, 2020 by 2:00pm PDT
Section IV
For any questions pertaining to the questionnaire, please contact: Noah Nielsen at noah.nielsen@noaa.gov
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .