Attachment 3 Assessor Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 51 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M00264-25-R-0002
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document is an Assessor Past Performance Questionnaire template for a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Training and Education Command (TECOM) Aviation Standards Branch (ASB): Marine Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program (M-SHARP).
The RFP solicitation number is M00264-25-R-0002. It is for a single award, firm-fixed-price contract with a 12-month base period and two 12-month option periods. The NAICS code is 541512 "Computer Systems Design Services" with a $34.0M size standard. The questionnaire provides instructions for the offeror and assessor to complete sections covering solicitation details, contractor information, assessor information, performance evaluation criteria, and an overall assessment of the contractor's technical, schedule, management, and cost performance on a previous relevant contract. The summary focuses on the key details and does not include legal language or other non-essential information.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| M00264-25-R-0002 Amend 0004.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4_ Pricing Template_Revised.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| M00264-25-R-0002 Amend 0003.pdf | ||
| M00264-25-R-0002 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4_ Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| M00264-25-R-0002 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 DD254 M-SHARP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| M00264-25-R-0002.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
RFP M00264-25-R-0002 Attachment #3
ASSESOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE TEMPLATE
Instructions:
· Sections I through II are to be completed by the Offeror/Major Subcontractor and provided to the assessor (Government personnel who had experience with the Offeror/Major Subcontractor on a previous relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, to verify Sections I through II, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office. The Offeror should also submit with its quotation (by the closing date of the Solicitation) copies of Sections I and II of all questionnaires as provided to assessors.
· Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Sections III through VII are to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.
Message to the assessor: Your assistance is requested by the USMC to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below. In efforts to expedite receipt of the requested information, the Contracting Office respectfully requests that you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: christa.eggleston-sc@usmc.mil and grace.gonzalez@usmc.mil.
I. Solicitation Data (for the proposed effort)
| Solicitation Number |
| M00264-25-R-0002 |
| Customer/Agency |
| Training and Education Command (TECOM) Aviation Standards Branch (ASB) |
| Project/Requirement Description |
| Marine Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program (M-SHARP) |
II. Current or Historical Contract Information
Assessor: The information listed below is |_| Correct |_| Incorrect.
CONTRACTOR
NAME & ADDRESS:
Contract Number
Type of Contract
| Initial |
| Final |
Contract Value
Performance Period Delivery Schedule
Project/Requirement Description
Please select from the following as it applies to this contract:
| Contracting Role |
| |_| PRIME |
| |_| SUBCONTRACTOR |
| Termination History |
| |_| Convenience |
| |_| Default |
| |_| N/A |
III. Assessor Information
Assessor Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address
Identify your role in the contract award or administration and the period of your involvement.
| Role |
| Period of Involvement |
Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)
Contract Specialist
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)
Technical Project Lead/Project Officer
Quality Assurance Specialist
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Auditor
Other (Specify)
IV. Evaluation Definitions
Use the following definitions in your assessment of contractor performance.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-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 contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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 contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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. |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
[The above evaluation levels and rating definitions are the same as prescribed in Attachment 2 of the Department of Defense’s Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) for use within CPARS.]
V. Performance Evaluation
[Insert within this section and the tables below all applicable elements and sub-elements relating to past performance (e.g., Quality of Product or Service, Schedule Performance, Management Performance, Cost Control, etc.) and explain what these elements and sub-elements encompass.]
1. Quality of Performance
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the quality of the contractor’s performance?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Quality of Performance
Please provide the rationale for your assigned rating.
b. Assess the Contractor’s quality of performance in the following areas.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Conformance to Contract Requirements
Conformance to Specifications
Standards of Workmanship *
* Standards of Workmanship: Technical, professional, environmental, safety, etc.
While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or unsatisfactory.
c. Did the Government contribute in any way to problems associated with quality as identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.
2. Schedule Performance (Timeliness)
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s ability to meet the schedule?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Schedule Performance
Please provide your rationale for the assigned rating.
b. Assess the Contractor’s Schedule Performance in the following areas.
| Schedule Performance |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Completion of Contract/Task Order/Delivery Schedule
Meeting Milestones and Schedules
Submitting Deliverables
While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or unsatisfactory.
c. Did the Government contribute in any way to any Schedule problems identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.
3. Management Performance
a. What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor’s management performance?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Management Performance
Please provide rationale for assigned rating.
b. Assess the Contractor’s management performance in the following areas.
| Management Performance |
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Management Responsiveness
Subcontract
Program Management
Management Of Personnel
Integrated Product Team Management
Management Responsiveness: Timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, proposal submittal, history of cooperative behavior, effective business relations, teamwork AND customer satisfaction.
Subcontract Management: Timely award and management of subcontracts and meeting subcontracting goals for small business, small disadvantaged business, etc.
Program Management: Effectiveness of integration and coordination of all activities required to execute the contract, use of resources, assignment of responsibility, internal coordination and communication, and risk management practices Management Of Personnel: Ability to select, retain, support, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise necessary to accomplish the Government’s requirements within schedule and budget Integrated Product Team Management: Commitment and participation in the Integrated Product Team process
While all comments are appreciated, please explain below your rationale for ratings of exceptional or unsatisfactory.
c. Did the Government contribute in any way to any of the management problems identified in the above assessment? If yes, please explain.
VI. Overall Rating of Contractor’s performance (technical, schedule, management, and cost) on contract being assessed.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
VII. General Comments:
| _________________________________ | ____________________ | |
| Assessor’s Signature | Date |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .