Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

N0016718R0004

Attachment 6 N00167-22-R-0001 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 on behalf of the Advanced Propulsor Management Office (Code 808) for Propulsor Demonstration Hardware.

It is requested that you complete and submit this questionnaire via e-mail to the following e-mail addresses patricia.folts@navy.mil (Contract Specialist) and jonathan.mauro@navy.mil (Contracting Officer) with RFP N00167-22-R-0001 submission.

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-0001, please provide the following information pertaining to the contract identified in Section 2 above:

(b) Scope: Check all that apply:

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

Comments:

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

Comments:

d. Technical. If applicable, describe the amount and type of welding conducted under the tasking within your effort. Specifically, there should be a special emphasis on large components, components with thick sections, or NiCu components. Please include the size of the component and the thickness/type of weld. Please describe if the performance was adequate.

5 - Outstanding 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Satisfactory 1 - Unsatisfactory

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

Page | 1 SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104