Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 159 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MK22 Motor Tubes Solicitation N0017426R0002
- Solicitation number
- N0017425SN0005
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 .