ATTCH 0007_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.docx

DOCX document 32 KB Posted

Attached to
Metal Parts (Multiple) & MK 14 Tanks
Solicitation number
N0017425R0006
Issued by

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 PDF
N0017425R0006_0004.pdf PDF
N0017425R0006_0003.pdf PDF
ATTCH 0008_Questions Answers Rev1.pdf PDF
N0017425R0006_0002.pdf PDF
ATTCH 0008_Questions Answers.pdf PDF
N0017425R0006_0001.pdf PDF
ATTCH 0001_EXBT 0001_DD1423 CDRL.pdf PDF
ATTCH 0002_GFP List 12-13-2024.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
N0017425R0006.pdf 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 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 .