Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 159 KB Posted

Attached to
MK22 Motor Tubes Solicitation N0017426R0002
Solicitation number
N0017425SN0005
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD) Solicitation Number N0017426R0002. The questionnaire provides a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing contractor performance across multiple dimensions including customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, and overall quality.

The document includes a detailed rating scale with five performance levels ranging from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with a Neutral option for contractors lacking relevant past performance records. The form requires subjective feedback on contractor recommendation and potential unique problems, allowing government evaluators to provide nuanced insights into a contractor's performance. The questionnaire is to be submitted to NSWC IHD at 4081 North Jackson Road, Indian Head, MD 20640-5115, with a contact email of diane.d.hicks.civ@us.navy.mil.

View the file

Other files

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

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

ATTACHMENT 3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017426R0002

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)

4081 North Jackson Road

Indian Head, MD 20640-5115

Email address: diane.d.hicks.civ@us.navy.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.

mailto:diane.d.hicks.civ@us.navy.mil

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.

E X

C E

P T

IO

N

A L

V E

R Y

G O

O D

S

T

IS

F A

C T

O R

Y

M

R G

IN

L

U N

S A

T

IS

F A

C T

O R

Y

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?

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .