Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA251726A007
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template designed to collect historical contract performance information from quoters bidding on the Cheyenne Mountain SFS Upgrade EST-3 Fire Alarm System to EST-4 contract opportunity issued by Peterson Space Force Base's 21st Civil Engineering Squadron.
The form requires quoters to provide identifying information including company name, address, point of contact details, and comprehensive contract history for relevant past performance examples. For each contract listed, quoters must document the contract title, customer, contract number, value, period of performance, place of performance, contract description, and a government or customer point of contact for verification purposes. The questionnaire uses a five-point rating scale (Unsatisfactory through Exceptional) across three evaluation categories—Technical, Schedule Management, and Other—with detailed performance definitions provided for each rating level. Ratings of Exceptional require documentation of multiple significant benefits to the contract holder with no significant weaknesses, while Satisfactory ratings require only minor problems that were adequately resolved. The form permits submission of multiple technical forms and allows non-federal contract references to be verified directly with the 21st Civil Engineering Squadron Contracting Office.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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 (PPQ)
Quoter’s Name: ________________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
Quoter Point of Contact (POC) Name: ______________________________________________________
Quoter Telephone Number: _______________________________________________________________
Quoter Email:___________________________________________________________________________
Contract Title: ________________________________________________________________________
Customer: ____________________________________________________________________
This contract was performed by the named quoter as a (Circle one): Prime Contractor or Subcontractor
Place of Performance: _________________________________________________________________
Contract Number:______________________________________________________
Contract Value: ______________________________________________________________________
Contract Period or Dates of Performance: _________________________________________________ Contract Description:___________________________________________________________________ Contract Point of Contact (POC) to Verify Above Contract Point of Contact: _____________________________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number: ___________________________________________________________________
Email:_______________________________________________________________________________
*** Multiple Technical Forms will be accepted **** *** If the contract was not with a Federal Entity, have the POC complete the information below and send directly to the POCs at 21 CONS. ***
Rate the following categories 1-5. Put NA if the Category is not applicable to the contract.
| Unsatisfactory - 1 |
| Marginal - 2 |
| Satisfactory - 3 |
| Very Good - 4 |
| Exceptional - 5 |
Technical
Schedule
Management
Other
Rating
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Contract Holder’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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 Contract Holder. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Contract Holder’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 how it was a benefit to the Contract Holder. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being evaluated 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. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted the Contract Holder. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, etc.). |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted the Contract Holder. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes 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, etc.). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .