Attachment III Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

Solicitation #: 1305M223RNMAN0225

Attachment: III

Source Selection Information

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

REFERENCE CONTRACT #: ___________________________(Contract number of the Past

Performance this information is based on)

Send Completed Questionnaire to Contract Specialist, Christopher

Meconnahey no later than September 14, 2023, 4:00 pm Eastern

Time: chris.meconnahey@noaa.gov

1. QUALITY OF SERVICE

Assess the contractor’s performance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, or environmental standards).

(Check the appropriate rating box.)

Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description

Exceptional

The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding.

Source Selection Information

Very Good

The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract.

Satisfactory

The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract.

Neutral

The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Marginal

The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight.

Unsatisfactory

The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of consistently poor quality and did not meet most contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected very serious problems that the offeror failed to identify and/or correct, or for which corrective actions implemented were mostly ineffective.

The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the offeror will not achieve successful performance of the contemplated contract without excessively high levels of Government management and oversight.

Comments:

2. SCHEDULE

Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance). (Check the appropriate rating box.)

Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit.

Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective.

The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding.

Very Good The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract.

Satisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract.

Neutral The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Marginal The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight.

Unsatisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of consistently poor quality and did not meet most contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected very serious problems that the offeror failed to identify and/or correct, or for which corrective actions implemented were mostly ineffective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the offeror will not achieve successful performance of the contemplated contract without excessively high levels of Government management and oversight.

Comments:

3. COST CONTROL

Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost.

(Check the appropriate rating box.)

Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding.

Very Good The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective.

The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract.

Satisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract.

Neutral The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Marginal The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of

Government management and oversight.

Unsatisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of consistently poor quality and did not meet most contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected very serious problems that the offeror failed to identify and/or correct, or for which corrective actions implemented were mostly ineffective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the offeror will not achieve successful performance of the contemplated contract without excessively high levels of Government management and oversight.

Comments:

4. MANAGEMENT

Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, and customer satisfaction.

(Check the appropriate rating box.)

Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding.

Very Good The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract.

Satisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract.

Neutral The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Marginal The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective.

Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of

Government management and oversight.

Unsatisfactory The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of consistently poor quality and did not meet most contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected very serious problems that the offeror failed to identify and/or correct, or for which corrective actions implemented were mostly ineffective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the offeror will not achieve successful performance of the contemplated contract without excessively high levels of

Government management and oversight.

Comments:

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY:

Rater’s Name: ___________________________

Rater’s Signature: ________________________

Date: ____________________________________

Send Completed Questionnaire to Contract Specialist, Christopher

Meconnahey no later than September 14, 2023, 4:00 pm Eastern Time:chris.meconnahey@noaa.gov