Attachment 3_BSR-SW_Past Performance Questionnaire_RFP.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z02326R73120001
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for the Border Security Riverine – Shallow Water (BSR-SW) Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the US Coast Guard. The questionnaire is designed for references to provide detailed performance ratings across four key evaluation categories: Quality of Product/Service, Schedule, Cost, and Management (Business Relations). References are asked to complete Section 2 of the form and return it to William E. Lewis by January 16, 2026, at 5:00 PM EST.
The solicitation is a small business set-aside for NAICS Code 336612 with a business size standard of 1,000 employees, focusing on Small Craft (Product Service Code 1940). The performance rating scale ranges from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with references expected to provide rationale and specific examples to support their ratings. The questionnaire is part of a comprehensive evaluation process for potential contractors, emphasizing the importance of past performance in demonstrating capability to meet contract requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
Attachment 3
Past Performance Questionnaire (Complete one form per reference)
Please fill out the applicable information.
SECTION 1 – TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR
Offeror:
Contract Number:
Order Number:
__ Prime or _____ Subcontractor (Check one)
| Dollar Amount: $0.00 |
| Date Completed: MM/DD/YY |
Contract Type:
(Check One) _____ Fixed Price _____ Cost Reimbursement _____ Other (Specify)
Item/Service Description:
Contract Quantity/Period of Performance:
Customer/Business/Agency Name:
Customer POC (Note: Ensure POC information is valid and current) Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
SECTION 2 – TO BE COMPLETED BY THE REFERENCE
The offeror in Section 1 provided you with a reference for a solicitation they are a party to. Please complete Section 2 and return to William E. Lewis at William.E.Lewis3@uscg.mil no later than January 16, 2026, by 5:00 PM EST.
Evaluation In TABLE 3 indicate the contractor’s past performance for each category area and overall rating by identifying with an “x” or check mark for the most appropriate rating according to the Performance Rating Definitions in Table 2. Provide rationale, including specific examples, as appropriate, to support your ratings in the space provided for comments for each category area. If more space is needed, continue your comments in the “Additional Comments” section at the end of this questionnaire.
TABLE 1- Category Area
| Rating |
| Description |
| Quality of Product/Service |
| Assessment based on the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). |
| Schedule |
| Assessment based on the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance). |
| Cost |
| Assessment based on the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. |
***If contract is/was Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment, please mark “Not Rated”***
| Management (Business Relations) |
| Assessment based on the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. |
TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE RATINGS DEFINITIONS
| Rating |
| Description |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The 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 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. |
| Not Rated |
| Not applicable or has no history. |
TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE RATINGS
| Category |
| Rating |
1. Quality of Product/Service:
__Exceptional __Very Good __Satisfactory __Marginal __Unsatisfactory __Not Rated
| 2. Schedule: |
| __Exceptional |
__Very Good __Satisfactory __Marginal __Unsatisfactory __Not Rated
3. Cost:
***If contract is/was Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment, please mark “Not Rated”*** __Exceptional __Very Good __Satisfactory __Marginal __Unsatisfactory __Not Rated
| 4. Management (Business Relations): |
| __Exceptional |
__Very Good __Satisfactory __Marginal __Unsatisfactory __Not Rated
Additional Comments:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .