Attachment J-2_ Past Performance Questionnaire v4.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request for Proposal: NOAA Commercial Weather Data Program Radio Occultation Data Buy II (RODB) -2
- Solicitation number
- 1332KP22RNEEP0003
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template and information on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration solicitation for radio occultation data.
The solicitation seeks proposals for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract to continue providing commercially sourced operational Global Navigation Satellite System radio occultation data to meet NOAA's needs for neutral atmosphere and ionosphere data. Interested offerors must submit proposals in electronic format by 4:00 PM Eastern Time on August 23, 2022. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by references for offerors and returned directly to the NOAA contracting officer by the proposal deadline to assist in the evaluation. It requests ratings on factors such as quality, timeliness, cost control, management, and regulatory compliance for previous relevant contracts and whether the rater would recommend the contractor for future requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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 # J-2:
PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Commercial Weather Data Program Radio Occultation Data Buy II (RODB) -2
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
<This grey header section is to be completed by the offeror and provided to the reference with a description of the project. Reference should be instructed to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the government contacts identified in Section IV. >
Contractor Being Evaluated:
If different from the “Contractor Being Evaluated,” the Prime Contractor that’s quoting on whose behalf this is being submitted:
Contract Number / Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Name/Title:
Contract Period of Performance:
Contract Description:
Contract Type:
Rater Name:
Rater Telephone:
Rater E-Mail Address:
Rater’s Role in Relation to the Contract (program/project manager, contracting officer, major end user, etc.):
Past Performance Confidence Ratings
| Adjectival Rating |
| Definition |
| 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. |
INDEX
Section I – Ratings Section II – Additional Narrative Justification Section III – Signature of Rater Section IV – Return Instructions Section V – Contact Information
Please provide any relevant information to support the ratings provided.
<Note: When completing this questionnaire by e-mail, please do not use a color, such as red, to select the rating in section I of this questionnaire. Color fonts do not show well when printed. Just delete all of the other rating responses. >
Section I
Contractor Performance
1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor’s products/services provided (e.g. compliance with contract requirements and accuracy of work)?
Supporting narrative: <see above criteria>
Response (Circle One)
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Neutral
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
2. How would you rate the contractor’s timeliness/schedule (e.g. met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical direction, on-time completion, wrap-up and contract administration, no liquidated damages assessed)?
Exceptional Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Neutral
3. How would you rate the performance of the contractor’s ability to control costs (cost control)?
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Neutral
4. How would you rate the contractor’s management and business relations (e.g. effective management, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, effective recommended solutions, business-like concerns for Government’s interests)?
How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet special needs (such as contingency support, innovative solutions, etc) for delivery requirements?
Exceptional
Satisfactory
Neutral
5. If applicable, how would you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively utilize manage, coordinate, and integrate subcontractors?
Exceptional
Satisfactory
Neutral
6. How would you rate the contractor’s regulatory compliance with applicable regulations during performance of this contract or order?
Exceptional
Satisfactory
Neutral
7. Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract/order being rated, I (‘would’ or ‘would not’) recommend them for similar requirements in the future.
Would Recommend
Would Not Recommend
Section II
Additional Supporting Narrative, if required: <Include the number of the question to which this supporting narrative applies. Additional pages may be used.>
Section III
Signature of rater: _______________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ <Signature of the rater is not required if sent via e-mail directly from rater to the NOAA CO.>
Section IV
Please email the completed questionnaire directly to suzanna.espinoza@noaa.gov (you are not required to submit this to the contractor).
Please return the completed questionnaire by no later than the RFP’s proposal deadline of 4PM Eastern Time on August 23, 2022.
For any questions pertaining to the questionnaire, please contact: Suzanna Espinoza, Contracting Officer, by email at suzanna.espinoza@noaa.gov.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .