Attachment 2 - Past_Performance_Questionnaire - N0017424R0004.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MK 85 Motor Tubes - Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017424R0004
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for Solicitation Number N0017424R0004 issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD). The solicitation is for the fabrication, test, inspection, and shipment of MK 85 Motor Tubes in accordance with drawing number 1638AS301.
The Past Performance Questionnaire requests the agency/activity completing the questionnaire to provide an evaluation of the offeror's past performance in areas such as customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, and quality. Respondents are asked to use a rating scale of Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory to assess the offeror's performance. The questionnaire also requests subjective responses regarding whether the respondent would recommend the contractor for similar contracts and any unique problems experienced. The completed questionnaire is to be submitted directly to the contracting office prior to the closing date of the solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A003_RFV_Signed.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A006_CoC_Signed.pdf | ||
| N0017424R0004 - FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - PastPerformanceMatrix - N0017424R0004.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 3 - Contract-Administration-Plan_N0017424R004.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A002_COA_Signed.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A004_QualityPlan_Signed.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A001_Inspection_Signed.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - MK85 Motor Tube_CDRL_A005_ProgressReports_Signed.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
ATTACHMENT 2
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017424R0004
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) e-mail address: alex.j.sanders12.civ@usnavy.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?
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .