Attachment 3 - Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mathematical Gravity Modeling Advancement
- Solicitation number
- HM0476_MaGMA
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template that solicitors must complete and submit to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) as part of their response to the Mathematical Gravity Modeling Advancement (HM0476_MaGMA) solicitation. Offerors must return the completed questionnaire to the identified NGA Contracting Officer (Matthew Hoffman), Contract Specialist (Nathan Huber), and Contracting Officer Representative (Lauren Sandidge) at their provided email addresses.
The questionnaire requires offerors to provide detailed information about relevant past contracts, including contractor name, contract number, contract value, award and completion dates, contract type, fee structure, and a summary description that must include the percentage of personnel turnover rate for cleared personnel. Offerors must identify a Government Point of Contact (POC)—either a Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or Assistant Contracting Officer Representative (ACOR)—who is knowledgeable about their performance on each referenced contract. The form includes evaluation criteria across Management Performance (program management communication, responsiveness to government direction, issue identification, schedule delivery, and stakeholder collaboration) and Technical Performance (technical approach and resource allocation; quality assurance implementation and metrics). Evaluators must rate contractor performance using a six-point scale (Neutral, Unacceptable, Marginal, Acceptable, Good, Outstanding) with detailed guidance for each rating level. The questionnaire also requires evaluators to provide comments explaining strengths and weaknesses, confirm whether unsatisfactory performance was communicated to the contractor, and indicate whether they would use the contractor again. Upon completion, this form constitutes Source Selection Information protected under 41 U.S.C. 423.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment2_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HM047626R0034 Request for Proposals.pdf | ||
| Attachment1_MaGMA_SOW_20260610.docx | DOCX document |
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
UNCLASSIFIED
Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 3
UNCLASSIFIED
Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 3 Attachment 3 - (U) Past Performance Questionnaire Offerors must complete this past performance questionnaire and return to:
| Matthew Hoffman | Nathan Huber | |
| Contracting Officer | Contract Specialist | |
| matthew.a.hoffman@nga.mil | nathan.g.huber@nga.mil |
| Lauren Sandidge |
| Contracting Officer Representative |
| lauren.n.sandidge@nga.mil |
For each contract referenced, the Offeror shall identify a Government Point of Contact (POC) knowledgeable about the Offeror’s performance on the contract. The POC can be the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or Assistant Contracting Officer Representative (ACOR).
When all evaluation information is completed, this form constitutes SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
(U) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
(U) Information to be completed by OFFEROR
| Contractor Name: |
| Contract Number: |
Address:
Contract Value:
| Contracting Officer Name: |
| Phone Number: |
| Award Date:(DD MM YYYY) |
| Completion Date:(DD MM YYYY) |
| Program Manager Name: |
| Phone Number: |
| Contract Type: |
| Fee Type: |
Summary Description of Contract: (Also include the percentage of personnel turnover rate for cleared personnel at the end of the summary description)
Did/does this contract involve any classified work?
No ( ) Yes ( ) Department of Defense Collateral: ( ) Sensitive Compartmented Information: ( ) Other (i.e., Special Access Program): ( ) Secret: ( ) Top Secret: ( )
Signature:
Date:
(U) Information to be completed by EVALUATING ORGANIZATION
| Name: |
| Rank and Service, if Military: |
| Duty Title: |
| Organization; |
| Phone: (commercial, not DSN) |
| FAX: |
| Email Address: | |
| Observed Months of Performance (DD MMM YYYY): | |
| From: | To: |
(U) Based on your knowledge of the contract identified above, please provide your assessment of how well the contractor performed on each of the following topics. Please check the appropriate rating and, since we may provide the contractor an opportunity to respond, if you indicate that the contractor had significant weaknesses, please provide thorough and concise comments on all responses other than those rated satisfactory or N/A.
(U) All checkmarks shall include adequate rationale to describe the rating. For each of the performance ratings indicated, use the following guidelines* to rate each question and mark the appropriate box:
*(U) The final composite rating will not reflect a numerical score.
(U) PAST PERFORMANCE*
| NEUTRAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| GOOD |
| OUTSTANDING |
| No past performance information is available. |
| Indicates the contactor is deficient and demonstrates very little understanding and ability to perform the goals and objectives of the contract. Such deficiencies are expected to be very difficult or impossible to correct |
| Indicates contractor’s performance does meet contractual requirements, however, the area of evaluation contains serious problems for which corrective actions will be difficult to correct and have not yet been identified, appear only marginally effective, or have not been fully implemented. |
| Indicates performance meets contractual requirements and the goals and objectives of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The area of evaluation contains some minor problems for which the corrective actions have been taken and appear satisfactory, or corrective actions have been identified and will probably correct the deficiencies. |
| Indicates performance met all requirements and exceeded some. The contractor is fulfilling the goals and objectives of the PWS. Area of evaluation contains few minor problems for which timely corrective action has been taken and is effective. |
| Indicates performance exceeded all requirements, goals, and objectives of the PWS. Area of evaluation may have contained very few minor problems for which corrective action was very effective and timely as to avoid any impact to the government. |
(U) MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
| PROGRAM MANAGEMENT |
| NEUTRAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| GOOD |
| OUTSTANDING |
1. Communicates proactively and openly with government, sub-contractors and other stakeholders.
2. Ability to respond to Government direction and changing direction or requirements.
3. Identifies and communicates performance issues to the Government and proposes viable solutions.
4. Delivers according to schedule with minimal required adjustments.
5. Works constructively with Government to resolve issues
(U) TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
| TECHNICAL – TECHNICAL APPROACH |
| NEUTRAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| GOOD |
| OUTSTANDING |
1. Effectively identifies, prioritizes and applies resources to achieve Statement of Work (SOW) requirements.
| TECHNICAL – QUALITY ASSURANCE |
| NEUTRAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| GOOD |
| OUTSTANDING |
1. Effectively implements, maintains and adjust performance metrics to continuously improve deliverable quality.
2. Deliveries include integrated feedback provided on prior deliveries.
**SEE COMMENTS ON NEXT PAGE**
COMMENTS:
A. COMMENTS ON “O” (OUTSTANDING) AND “G” (GOOD) RATINGS, EXPLAINING STRENGTHS:
B. COMMENTS ON “M” (MARGINAL) AND “U” (UNSATISFACTORY) RATINGS, EXPLAINING WEAKNESSES:
C. OTHER COMMENTS:
a. HAS ANY UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE IDENTIFIED ABOVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE CONTRACTOR?
( ) YES: WRITTEN OR ORAL? ( ) NO ( ) N/A
b. WOULD YOU USE THIS CONTRACTOR AGAIN?
( ) YES ( ) NO (IF NO, PLEASE EXPLAIN BELOW)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .