Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

Attachment 5 Recent and Relevant Past Performance Questionnaire

N00167-22-R-0008 Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 & 3.104 A5-1

Attachment 5 - Recent and Relevant Past Performance Questionnaire

1. Past Performance Assessment. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) is soliciting competitive offers to award a contract for services in support of Logistics and maintenance support services for Code 70 at the Dania Beach Detachment facility.

It is requested that you complete and submit this questionnaire via e-mail to the following e-mail addresses charles.l.renno.civ@us.navy.mil (Contract Specialist) and carlos.triay@navy.mil (Contracting Officer) by the deadline provided in the Request for Proposal N00167-22-R-0008.

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 N00167-22-R-0008, 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 & Financial Management Support Acquisition & Contract Management Support Technical Management Support Technical Management Support Test and Evaluation Management Support General Logistics Management Support Production Management Support

Engineering Support Other Support: Please describe:

N00167-22-R-0008 Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 & 3.104 A5-2

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 - Outstanding 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Satisfactory 1 - Unsatisfactory 0 – Not Applicable

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 - Outstanding 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Satisfactory 1 - Unsatisfactory 0 – Not Applicable

Comments:

N00167-22-R-0008 Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 & 3.104 A5-3

c. 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 - Outstanding 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Satisfactory 1 - Unsatisfactory 0 – Not Applicable

Comments:

d. Technical. Rate the contractor’s adequate experience or personnel to perform the work conducted under the tasking within your effort. Please describe if the performance was adequate.

5 - Outstanding 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Satisfactory 1 - Unsatisfactory 0 – Not Applicable

Comments:

e. Recommendation. To what extent would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts?

5 - Yes 4 - Definitely 3 - Yes 2 - Maybe 1 – No, not likely 0 – No, not ever

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 IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR FEEDBACK