Attachment_4-Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 317 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ship Husbanding in Port Everglades
- Solicitation number
- 1333MK25Q0156
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) used to evaluate a federal contractor's performance across four key assessment areas: Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management. The questionnaire provides a standardized rating system with five adjectival ratings for each performance area: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory.
The form is designed to be completed by a government representative who will assess the contractor's performance based on specific criteria within each assessment area. For Quality of Service, the evaluation focuses on adherence to contract requirements and standards of workmanship. Schedule assessment examines timeliness of contract completion, task orders, milestones, and delivery schedules. Cost Control evaluates the contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling expenses. The Management section assesses integration and coordination of contract activities, problem identification, corrective action plans, and overall customer satisfaction. The completed questionnaire will be sent to Christopher Baker at Christopher.Baker@NOAA.GOV, with the specific submission deadline left blank on the document.
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
ATTACHMENT 4:
PAST PERFORMANCE
QUESTIONNAIRE
SOLICITATION
Source Selection Information
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED:
PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE:
REFERENCE CONTRACT #:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
Send Completed Questionnaire to at no later than
1. QUALITY OF SERVICE
Assess the contractor’s performance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, or environmental standards).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.
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.
Comments:
Source Selection Information
2. SCHEDULE
Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.
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
3. COST CONTROL
Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost.
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.
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
4. MANAGEMENT
Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, and customer satisfaction.
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
RATING ADJECTIVAL
RATING
DEFINITION
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.
VERY GOOD
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.
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
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY:
Rater’s Name: ___________________________
Rater’s Signature: ________________________
Rater's Email Address______________________
Rater's Phone #___________________________
Date: ____________________________________
| CONTRACTOR BEING REVIEWED: |
| BRIEF DESCRIPTION: |
| REFERENCE CONTRACT: |
| PERSON COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE: |
| DEFINITION: |
| RATINGRow1: |
| EXCEPTIONAL: |
| RATINGRow2: |
| VERY GOOD: |
| RATINGRow3: |
| SATISFACTORY: |
| RATINGRow4: |
| MARGINAL: |
| RATINGRow5: |
| UNSATISFACTORY: |
| DEFINITION_2: |
| RATINGRow1_2: |
| EXCEPTIONAL_2: |
| RATINGRow2_2: |
| VERY GOOD_2: |
| RATINGRow3_2: |
| SATISFACTORY_2: |
| RATINGRow4_2: |
| MARGINAL_2: |
| RATINGRow5_2: |
| UNSATISFACTORY_2: |
| DEFINITION_3: |
| RATINGRow1_3: |
| EXCEPTIONAL_3: |
| RATINGRow2_3: |
| VERY GOOD_3: |
| RATINGRow3_3: |
| SATISFACTORY_3: |
| RATINGRow4_3: |
| MARGINAL_3: |
| RATINGRow5_3: |
| UNSATISFACTORY_3: |
| DEFINITION_4: |
| RATINGRow1_4: |
| EXCEPTIONAL_4: |
| RATINGRow2_4: |
| VERY GOOD_4: |
| RATINGRow3_4: |
| SATISFACTORY_4: |
| RATINGRow4_4: |
| MARGINAL_4: |
| RATINGRow5_4: |
| UNSATISFACTORY_4: |
| Raters Name: |
| Date: |
| Text1: 1333MK25Q00XX |
| Date4_af_date: |
| Text2: Christopher.Baker@NOAA.GOV |
| Text3: |
| Text5: Christopher Baker |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .