Attachment 3 - PASTQUES-LP-TA.doc

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017423R0026

Offeror’s Name:

Name of agency/activity completing questionnaire:

Name and title of the person completing questionnaire:

Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:

SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE SOLICITATION TO:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD)

Attn: Alex Sanders

4081 N. Jackson Road, Bldg. 841

Indian Head, Maryland 20640-5035

E-mail address: alex.j.sanders12.civ@us.navy.mil

RATING

Please use the following guidelines to answer the questions. The Offeror’s Past Performance will be considered ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE as detailed below:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

ACCEPTABLE-The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met or exceeded contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very minor problems or some problems for which corrective actions taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Offeror were, or are expected to be, mostly effective. Performance over completed contracts ranged from adequate to the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The Offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

UNACCEPTABLE-The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet some contractual requirements and recovery did not occur within the period of performance. The assessed prior performance reflected some serious problem(s) for which the Offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be implemented were, or are expected to be, partially or mostly ineffective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of mediocre or poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The Offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance will not be achieved, or might be difficult to achieve, or that it can occur only with increased levels of Government management and oversight.

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.

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?

PAGE

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104