Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z08426QAA850100
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a U.S. Coast Guard contract for Full Food Services at Sector Corpus Christi, TX, with contract number 70Z08426QAA850100. The questionnaire is a comprehensive evaluation form designed to assess a contractor's performance across 23 specific criteria, including management capabilities, personnel performance, quality control, problem-solving, schedule adherence, and overall contract execution.
The evaluation matrix allows respondents to rate performance levels from Exceptional (E) to Unsatisfactory (U) across dimensions such as personnel management, quality control, problem resolution, scheduling, responsiveness to changes, and cooperation with government personnel. The form requires detailed feedback and includes sections for general contractor information, respondent details, and specific performance ratings, with responses to be emailed to Bahar Cabrera at the U.S. Coast Guard. The accompanying solicitation indicates this is a commercial food service contract for providing meals to active and reserve personnel, with optional site visit scheduled for 10 December 2025.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
Contract: 70Z08426QAA850100
U.S. COAST GUARD SECTOR CORPUS CHRISTY
FULL FOOD SERVICE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Please correct any information below known to be inaccurate
Contractor Name:
Telephone Number:
Address:
Fax Number:
Point of Contact:
Project Title and Brief Description of Work:
Contract Number:
Dollar Amount:
Period of Performance:
Contractor Performed As: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor
B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION:
Name of Respondent:
Title:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
C. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, VG, S, M, and U) that most accurately describes the Contractor’s performance or situation. Please provide a narrative explanation for any rating of U.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and/or sub-task being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and/or sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and/or sub-task contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and/or sub-task being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task and/or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective. |
Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.
| The Contractor has: |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| 1. |
| Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements. |
| 2. |
| Demonstrated ability to hire, maintain, and replace, if necessary, qualified personnel during the contract period. |
| 3. |
| Delegated authority to project managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements. |
| 4. |
| Home office participated in solving significant local problems. |
| 5. |
| Followed approved quality control plan. |
| 6. |
| Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements. |
| 7. |
| Corrected deficiencies in timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures. |
| 8. |
| Provided timely resolution of contract discrepancies. |
| 9. |
| Identified problems as they occurred. |
| 10. |
| Suggested alternative approaches to problems. |
| 11. |
| Displayed initiative to solve problems. |
| 12. |
| Developed realistic progress schedules. |
| 13. |
| Met established project schedules. |
| 14. |
| Provided timely resolution of warranty defects. |
| 15. |
| Was responsive to contract changes. |
| 16. |
| Provided adequate project supervision. |
| 17. |
| Obtained consent of surety for increases in bonding as work-in-progress increased. |
| 18. |
| Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner. |
| 19. |
| Provided accurate and complete line item cost proposals including all aspects of work required for each task. |
| 20. |
| Cooperated with Government personnel after award. |
| 21. |
| How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? |
| 22. |
| Was the Contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “remarks”. |
| Yes / No |
| 23. |
| Would you award another contract to this Contractor? If not, explain in “remarks”. |
| Yes / No |
| 24. |
| Is this Contractor rated in CPARS? |
| Yes / No |
Remarks:
Responses to this questionnaire should be emailed directly to Bahar Cabrera at Bahar.Cabrera@uscg.mil. Should you have any questions concerning this survey, please contact Bahar Cabrera
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .