Attachment 4_Past Performance Questionnaire_FINAL.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Electronic Personal Dosimeters (EPD) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00167-24-R-0040
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD). The questionnaire requests information about the contractor's past performance on a relevant contract, including details on cost control, schedule, mission requirements, quality, socioeconomic goals, and business relations. The respondent is asked to provide an assessment of the contractor's performance using a 5-point scale and to recommend the contractor for additional contracts. The related federal contract opportunity is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the procurement of Electronic Personal Dosimeters (EPD), including 30,600 photon EPDs and 50 software-interface readers, incidental training, quarterly program reviews, and data deliverables. The contract will be a firm fixed price (FFP) purchase order awarded on a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis by NSWCCD. The solicitation and related documents are available as part of the announcement.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
N00167-24-R-0040 N00167-24-R-0040
Attachment 4 Past Performance Questionnaire (Recent and Relevant)
1. Past Performance Assessment. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) is soliciting competitive offers to award a firm fixed price (FFP) purchase order on behalf of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division Radiation Detection Technology Branch and RADIAC In-Service Engineering Agent.
It is requested that you complete and submit this questionnaire via DoD SAFE according to Section L.1.5 procedures, to the following individuals by the closing date on the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) Attn: Zelda Y. Rappuhn, Contracting Officer (Code 0244) Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division E-mail: zelda.y.rappuhn.civ@us.navy.mil
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) Attn: Vanessa Rincon, Contract Specialist (Code 0244) Email: vanessa.rincon.civ@us.navy.mil
RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ABOVE CONTRACTING POINTS OF CONTACT.
If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages. Responses will be treated as source selection sensitive information. If you have any questions, please contact the Contracting Officer or the Contract Specialist at the above e-mail addresses.
2. Contract Information. Please complete the following:
Contractor:
Contract Number:
Period of Performance:
Dollar Amount at Award:
Dollar Amount at Completion (or Current Dollar Amount, if not Completed):
Contract Type: Fixed-Price; Labor Hour or Time and Material; Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPAF, CPIF, etc.)
Describe the Products or Services:
3. Contract Relevancy. For comparison with the size and scope of Solicitation N00167-24-R-0040, please provide the following information pertaining to the contract identified in Section 2 above:
(a) Size: $______ per year in contract services.
(b) Scope: Check all that apply:
______ Program Management Support ______ Planning Support ______ Business and Financial Management Support ______ Acquisition and Contract Management Support ______ Technical Management Support ______ Test and Evaluation Management Support ______ General Logistics Management Support ______ Production Management Support ______ Engineering Support ______ Other Support (please describe: _________________________)
4. Performance Assessment Values.
5 – Outstanding. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements, to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
4 – Excellent. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements, to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
3 – Good. Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
2 – Satisfactory. Performance barely meets some contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
1 – Unsatisfactory. Performance does not meet some or most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
0 – Not Applicable. Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.
5. Assessment Elements. Please select/circle the appropriate performance assessment value for each item on the questionnaire and provide supporting narrative.
a. Cost Control. Rate the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost (including reporting and analyzing variances) and ability to deliver at the agreed-to cost/price. Provide reasons for changes to the contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes).
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
b. Schedule. Rate the contractor’s ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
c. Mission Requirements. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your mission requirements.
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
d. Quality. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your required level of quality. Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards.)
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
e. Socioeconomic Goals. Rate the contractor’s ability to meet any applicable subcontracting goals for utilization of Small Businesses (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB), HUBZone and Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI).
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
f. Business Relations. Rate the contractor’s ability to integrate and coordinate all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness, quality of problem resolution, corrective action plans, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, and its ability to submit accurate invoices in a timely manner.
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
g. Recommendation. To what extent would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts? Rate on the following scale: 5 = Yes, definitely; 4 = Yes, likely; 3 = Maybe, 2 = No, not likely; 1 = No, not ever; 0 = N/A.
5 4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
6. Other References. If you are aware of any other Point of Contact (POC) who is familiar with the contractor’s performance under this contract, please identify.
Name, Phone, and E-mail Address:
7. Assessor Information. Please provide the following information about yourself:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone Number:
E-mail Address:
Thank you for your assistance.
NSWCCD C02 021-014 Past Performance Questionnaire Rev 1 Effective February 2022
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .