ATTACHMENT L-3 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SOLICITATION N00030-20-R-0015

SECTION L

ATTACHMENT L-3

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Competition Sensitive For Official Use Only Page 1 of 4

Strategic Systems Programs Office (SSP) Daniel Vola, SPN307 1250 10TH Street SE, SUITE 3600 Washington, DC 20374-5127

TO: AGENCY:

PHONE: EMAIL:

INFORMATION REQUEST

PAST PERFORMANCE

The U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) is in the process of soliciting offers for a competitive service contract to provide strategic analysis and research, exercise development and staffing, and program management support for the Naval Treaty Implementation Program (NTIP) under solicitation N00030-20-R-0015. Our firm is competing for this opportunity and request that you provide responses to the past performance questionnaire (PPQ) survey questions presented below with regard to our performance under Contract No. .

We request the completed PPQ be emailed as a PDF directly to the cognizant Contracting Officer, Daniel Vola at daniel.vola@ssp.navy.mil no later than 8 May 2020.

mailto:daniel.vola@ssp.navy.mil

Competition Sensitive For Official Use Only Page 2 of 4

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

CONTRACTOR NAME:

CONTRACT NUMBER: TASK ORDER NO:

CONTRACT TYPE:

DATE AWARDED:

EVALUATION PERIOD:

CONTRACT AMT: STATUS: ACTIVE COMPLETE

EVALAUATOR INFORMATION:

Name Title

Phone Email

1. Please describe the service provided by the Contractor for your organization or firm. Please note that the Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) is primarily interested in past performance related to arms control treaty support, implementation and compliance.

2. Please assign evaluation ratings to the contractor’s performance in each of the 12 survey areas provided on page 3 below using the following criteria. For ratings of “Exceptional,” “Marginal,” or “Unsatisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation in the Evaluation Comments paragraph 3, below.

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional

Quality of performance exceeded all contractual requirements and expectations. The contract performance specification was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The contractor was pro-active in identification of problems, providing alternatives and recommendations.

Very Good

Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many expectations. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the customer were effective.

Satisfactory

Quality of performance met contractual requirements. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor that were satisfactory.

Marginal

Quality of performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contract scope of work effort has had some serious problems which the contractor did not resolve to satisfaction. The contractor’s proposed actions appeared only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Quality of performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contract scope of work performance had major problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Not Applicable The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation.

Competition Sensitive For Official Use Only Page 3 of 4

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

EXCEPT. VERY

GOOD SAT. MARG. UNSAT. N/A

1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.

2) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.

3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.

4) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.

5) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.

6) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues

7) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.

8) The contractor was able to recruit, hire, and retain sufficient key and technical personnel to ensure quality contract performance.

9) The Contractor demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.

10) The contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.

11) For Large Businesses: Ability of contractor to comply with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

12) How would you rate the contractor’s overall past performance for the referenced contract/delivery order?

Competition Sensitive For Official Use Only

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

3. Evaluation Comments: