Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire .pdf
PDF 309 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tactical Combat and Electronic Warfare Systems Research and Development Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017325RGG04
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) related to a federal contract opportunity. The PPQ is used to evaluate a contractor's past performance on a specific contract. It covers technical performance, schedule performance, cost control, and management performance. The questionnaire asks the contractor's client to provide ratings and comments on various aspects of the contractor's performance, including product assurance, responsiveness, quality, socioeconomic goals, program management, subcontract management, and management of key personnel. The PPQ also includes sections for the client to provide an overall assessment of the contractor's performance and a recommendation on whether the contractor should be selected for future awards.
The related federal contract opportunity is for "Tactical Combat and Electronic Warfare Systems Research and Development" (Solicitation Number N0017325RGG04), which is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research. This RFP is a Total Small Business Set-Aside opportunity.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 0002 - RFP Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002 - SF 30.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002 - Exhibit A - CDRLs (Updated).pdf | ||
| RFP QA_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment 0002 - Attachment 1 - SOW (Updated).pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - SF 30.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - Attachment 2 - DD254 (Updated).pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - RFP Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 - Proposal Checklist.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - SOW.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - Personnel Qualifications.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - CDRLs.pdf | ||
| RFP - N0017325RGG04.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Requirements for On-Site Contractors.pdf |
Show all 15
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
EXCEPTIONAL
MARGINAL
2. SUBCONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT TO
NRLINST 4200.15
INSTRUCTIONS: The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) requests that you complete this questionnaire and provide your feedback to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor identified below. In an effort to expedite receipt of the requested information, please do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: Gabrielle Giles; gabrielle.l.giles.civ@us.navy.mil no later than 1600 Eastern Standard Time, on 4 December 2024.
I. CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. CONTRACTOR NAME
3. CONTRACT NUMBER
5. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
8. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT (Use additional sheets as needed)
7. CURRENT CONTRACT COST/PRICE6. INITIAL CONTRACT COST/PRICE
4. CONTRACT TYPE
HQ-NRL 4335/2 (6-14)(Front) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104 -- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
II. RATINGS
RATING
UNSATISFACTORY
SATISFACTORY
VERY GOOD
DEFINITION
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.
Performance does not meet 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.
Performance barely meets some of the contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
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
III. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
A. TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE: What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor's ability to meet the technical requirements?
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
PRODUCT ASSURANCE - Assess the Contractor's technical performance in the following areas:
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
B. SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE: Rate the Contractor's ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N0017325RGG04
Attachment 5 - PPQ
N/A
D. MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE: What is your OVERALL assessment of the Contractor's management performance?
UNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/AUNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
COST PERFORMANCE
ADHERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL
COST ESTIMATE TARGETS?
DID THE CONTRACTOR CONTROL
SUBCONTRACTING COST?
DID THE CONTRACTOR OVERRUN
THE CONTRACT?
DID THE CONTRACTOR UNDERRUN
THE CONTRACT?
C. COST CONTROL: Rate the Contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost and provide reasons for changes to the contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes)
YES NO YES NOYES NOYES NO
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
N/A
ASSESS THE CONTRACTOR'S MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
UNSATISFACTORYMARGINALSATISFACTORYVERY GOODEXCEPTIONAL
RESPONSIVENESS - Timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification.
QUALITY - Ability to provide a product or service that met your required level of quality.
SOCIOECONOMIC GOALS - Ability to meet any applicable subcontracting goals for utilization of Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HUBZone and Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI).
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness of integration and coordination of all activities required to execute.
SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Timely award and management of subcontractors..
SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT - Ability to meet the goals of the subcontracting plan, to include timely award and management.
MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL - Performance in selecting, supporting and replacing - when necessary -key personnel.
COMMENTS (Rationale must be provided for ratings of EXCEPTIONAL or UNSATISFACTORY) (Use additional sheets as needed)
E. TERMINATION HISTORY:
HQ-NRL 4335/2 (6-14)(Back) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104 -- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PREPARED BY
COMMENTS (Use additional sheets as needed)
F. RECOMMENDATION: Would you recommend selection of this company for future awards? Explain.
NAME/TITLE
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
ORGANIZATION E-MAIL ADDRESS
PHONE
CONVENIENCE
YES, I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS CONTRACTOR FOR
FUTURE AWARDS.
N/ADEFAULT
NO, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS CONTRACTOR
FOR FUTURE AWARDS.
(ext.)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .