Attachment 5_Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 342 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N4008420R0052
About this file
This source selection plan outlines the evaluation process for a base operations support contract at Commander Fleet Activities Okinawa in Japan. The Navy seeks a single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity combination firm-fixed price contract for eight years of facility-related services. Offerors must be authorized to operate in Japan and comply fully with Japanese laws and regulations. The contract will not provide Official Contractor or Civilian Component status under the US-Japan Status of Forces Agreement. The source selection board will use a lowest price technically acceptable process to evaluate proposals against technical acceptability and past performance factors before assessing price proposals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 3_FINAL Revised ELINS dated 14 July 2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0006.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_Revised ELINS dated 14 July 2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0005.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_Revised ELINS dated 6 July 2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0004.pdf | ||
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_Revised ELINS.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| N40084-20-R-0052 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_ELINS.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N40084-20-R-0052 Request for Proposal.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2_Pre Proposal Inquiry Form.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4_Project Data Sheet.pdf |
Show all 14
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 5
NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:
Address: Entity Identifier Number:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:
2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):
Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):
Explain Differences:
4. Project Description:
Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)
5. Client Information Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
6. Describe the client’s role in the project:
7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
8. Client’s Signature:
NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS.
CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON
THIS FORM.
ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT
YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.
The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.
仕事が契約内容と合致しており、顧客の希望を 上回る点が多い。修正可能な範囲の軽微な不具 合を含め、契約通りの内容である。修正箇所は 非常に満足な結果である。
An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit.
The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
仕事が契約内容と合致しており、顧客の希望を 多少上回る。修正可能な範囲の若干の不具合を 含め、契約通りの内容である。修正箇所は満足 な結果である。
A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.
There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
仕事が最低限の契約内容と合致している。修正 可能な若干の不具合を含め、契約通りの内容で ある。修正箇所は特に問題ない結果である。
A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.
(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
仕事が契約内容と合致していない。修正可能な 不具合があるかどうかも把握できておらず、深 刻な状態である。業者から提案される方法は効 果的とは言えない、またはその方法を実行され てもいない。
A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
(U) Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
仕事が契約内容にほとんど合致しておらず、不 具合の復旧も迅速ではない。不具合の修正も全 く効果的ではなく、深刻な状態である。
An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.
(N) Not Applicable
No information or did not apply to your contract 評価材料がない、または該当せず。
Rating will be neither positive nor negative.
Contractor Information (Firm Name):
Client Information (Name):
| BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT (BOS) SERVICES, COMMANDER FLEET ACTIVITIES OKINAWA (CFAO) OKINAWA, JAPAN |
| This Source Selection Plan (SSP) is approved as the governing document for the evaluation of proposals received in response to the above noted solicitation. All personnel participating in or associated with this source selection shall be made aware o... |
| Preparer/Contract Specialist: |
| Section I – Introduction |
| Section II – Source Selection Organization, Functions, and General Procedures |
| I. INTRODUCTION |
| A. PURPOSE |
| 1. This Source Selection Plan (SSP) provides the procedures for a single board to evaluate and select the best value offer using the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. This process is appropriate when the Governmen... |
| B. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION |
| 1. This acquisition will result in the award of a single award combination Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for facility related services at CFAO. |
| 2. The proposed acquisition is for Base Operation Support (BOS) services for the Commander Fleet Activities Okinawa (CFAO), Okinawa, Japan. CFAO plays a key role in providing key aviation and ground logistic support and services to all permanent and... |
| 4. The completion date for the basic contract and options will be eight (8) years from the contract issuance date. |
| 8. The Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) for this project is provided as |
| C. RATIONALE FOR USE OF COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS (FAR 6.401(b)(1)) |
| D. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SECURITY PROCEDURES |
| A. SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY (SSA) |
| B. CONTRACTING OFFICER AND CONTRACT SPECIALIST |
| C. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB) |
| d. All non-Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreement required to be signed by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection, even if the non-Government advisors are employed by a contractor with a contrac... |
| e. Contractor personnel appointed as advisors shall not rank or recommend one proposal over another, assign any ratings or numerical scores, or otherwise act in a decision making capacity. Contractor personnel shall not participate in review and ... |
| 4. Evaluation of Non-Price Factors (Technical and Past Performance) |
| c. Non-Price Factors Evaluation Findings Documentation. |
| (1) The results of the non-price factors evaluation shall be documented in the non-price evaluation findings section of the SSEB Report. The documentation shall be a consensus of the SSEB chairperson/members and shall include the following inform... |
| 5. Evaluation of Price Proposals. |
| a. Functions and Responsibilities of the Price Evaluator Chairperson: |
| (8) If exchanges as outlined in FAR 15.306 are needed, contacts the Contracting Officer. |
| (9) Coordinates the preparation of the price evaluation findings documentation, including discussion questions to address any ambiguities regarding the proposed prices or any unreasonable or unfair indicators found within the price proposal. |
| (2) Maintain confidentiality of evaluation process at all times. |
| c. Price Evaluation Findings Documentation. |
| The results of the price proposal evaluation shall be documented in the price evaluation findings section of the SSEB Report. The documentation shall be a consensus of the Price Evaluator and shall include the following information: |
| D. COUNSEL |
| III. EVALUATION |
| A. BASIS FOR AWARD |
| 4. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through dis... |
| B. SAFETY EVALUATION |
| C. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS |
| 2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |
| D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD |
| The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of siz... |
| 2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor. |
| Offerors shall submit 1 original and 1 copy of the price proposal in 3 ring binders clearly marked as the price proposal. Each copy of the price proposal shall include a separate tab for each item specified below: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .