ATTCH 0007_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Metal Parts (Multiple) & MK 14 Tanks
- Solicitation number
- N0017425R0006
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for solicitation N00174-24-R-0006, to be submitted to Thomas Howes at NSWC IHD Contracts Department. The questionnaire evaluates contractors on a 5-point scale (Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, plus Neutral) across multiple performance categories including customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, and quality.
The questionnaire is part of a small business set-aside solicitation for metal parts production, including Mk16 and Mk11 Pallet Adapters, Dummy Nose Plugs, Fuze Adapters, Lid, Mk4 MOD 0 Fuze Protector Cap, Mk3 MOD 0 and Mk12 MOD 1 Pallets, and Mk14 MOD 4 5" 54 Cartridge Tank Assembly. These parts will be used in the manufacture and assembly of 5" Projectiles and Propelling Charges. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division - Picatinny Detachment plans to award a single five-year, Firm-Fixed price IDIQ contract under NAICS code 332999.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATTCH 0008_Questions Answers Rev2.pdf | ||
| N0017425R0006_0004.pdf | ||
| N0017425R0006_0003.pdf | ||
| ATTCH 0008_Questions Answers Rev1.pdf | ||
| N0017425R0006_0002.pdf | ||
| ATTCH 0008_Questions Answers.pdf | ||
| N0017425R0006_0001.pdf | ||
| ATTCH 0001_EXBT 0001_DD1423 CDRL.pdf | ||
| ATTCH 0002_GFP List 12-13-2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N0017425R0006.pdf | ||
| ATTCH 0006_Past Performance Matrix.doc | DOC document | |
| ATTCH 0004_NDA N00174-25-R-0006.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTCH 0005_DD2345_Military Critical Tech Data Agreement.pdf |
Show all 13
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N00174-24-R-0006
Offeror’s Name:
Name of agency/activity completing questionnaire:
Name and title of the person completing questionnaire:
Contract Number/Period of Performance: _____________________________________________________ Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:
Brief description of the services provided by the Offeror:
SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE SOLICITATION TO:
thomas.d.howes2.civ@us.navy.mil
Thomas Howes
NSWC IHD
Contracts Department 3rd Ave Bldg 61N Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were highly effective.
Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most 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.
NEUTRAL - The Offeror lacks a relevant past performance record or past performance information is not available or cannot be determined. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The referenced contractor was responsive to the customer’s needs.
The contractor’s personnel were qualified to meet the requirements.
The contractor’s ability to accurately estimate cost.
TIMELINESS
The contractor’s ability to ensure, to the extent of its responsibility, that all tasks were completed within the requested time frame.
TECHNICAL SUCCESS
The contractor had a clear understanding of the tasks detailed in the SOW and/or delivery orders.
The contractor’s ability to complete tasks correctly the first time.
The contractor’s ability to resolve problems.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Did the contractor successfully manage its subcontractors?
Was the contractor’s management effective in controlling cost, schedule and performance requirements?
QUALITY
The contractor’s quality and reliability of services delivered.
OVERALL
Please assign an overall rating for the contractor’s work performed.
PLEASE PROVIDE SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. Would you recommend this contractor for similar contracts? Please explain:
2. Have you experienced special or unique problems with the referenced contractor that the Government should be aware of in making our decision?
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .