Attch 3 - Past Performance Data Sheet-Questionniare.docx
DOCX document 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CONTRACTOR-OPERATED PARTS STORE (COPARS)
- Solicitation number
- M0068126R0005
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This is a Past Performance Data Sheet Questionnaire template designed to collect information from contractors regarding their relevant experience and performance history for the CONTRACTOR-OPERATED PARTS STORE (COPARS) contract opportunity.
The questionnaire serves as an appendix to the solicitation and does not specifically address required products or services beyond requesting documentation of past performance. As a template, it is intended to guide offerors in submitting structured information about their previous contracts, project outcomes, customer references, and performance metrics. The form would typically request details such as relevant contract history, scope of work performed, contract values, performance ratings, customer satisfaction data, and references that demonstrate the contractor's capability to manage parts supply operations across multiple military installations. This evaluation tool allows the Marine Corps to assess contractor qualifications and reliability in managing on-site parts stores, consignment inventory, or on-demand delivery services across the seven SWRFT installations in California and Arizona.
View the file
Other files
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 3: Past Performance Data Sheet / Questionnaire M0068126R0005
Instructions:
· Fill out 1 of these for each Past Performance reference.
· Sections I and II to be completed by the Offeror/Major Subcontractor and provided to the assessor (Government personnel who had experience with the Offeror/Major Subcontractor on a previous relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, to verify Sections I and II, complete the questionnaire (Section III), and submit to the Contracting Office. The Offeror should also submit with its proposal (by the closing date of the Solicitation) copies of Sections I and II of all questionnaires as provided to assessors.
· Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Section III to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.
Message to the assessor: Your assistance is requested by the USMC to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below. In efforts to expedite receipt of the requested information, the Contracting Office respectfully requests that you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: Jody.Koch@usmc.mil. Responses are due by:
26 October 2026 at 0900 (AM, local time, Los Angeles, CA)
1. Referenced Contract Data:
Contractor Name:
Contract Number:
Client / Agency:
Type of Contract:
Total Dollar Value of work performed:
Period of Performance:
Compliance with Clause FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, under this referenced effort
Please select from the following as it applies to this contract:
| Contracting Role |
| |_| PRIME |
| |_| SUBCONTRACTOR |
| Termination History |
| |_| Convenience |
| |_| Default |
| |_| N/A |
Requirement Description: Include a description of the work performed, specific responsibilities of the Offeror, major deliverables produced, performance measures/service levels applied, any problems/issues that occurred and correction action taken.
Describe how the scope is similar to this requirement:
Describe how the magnitude is similar to this requirement:
Describe how the complexity is similar to this requirement:
1. Contact Information for Reference:
Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address:
Identify their role in the contract award or administration and the period of involvement.
| Role |
| Period of Involvement |
Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)
Contract Specialist
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)
Technical Project Lead/Project Officer
Quality Assurance Specialist
Other:
1. Performance Evaluation
Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the following ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or Not Applicable (N/A). See next page for definition of ratings. For ratings of “Exceptional” or “Unsatisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| N/A |
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING
Please provide an overall rating of the Contractor’s performance for the referenced contract/delivery order.
a.) Quality of Product or Service: Conformance to contract requirements, appropriateness of personnel, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence b.) Timeliness or Scheduling of Supplies/Deliveries: Timeliness of performance, met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical and contractual direction as to scheduling.
c.) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction: Effective management, prompt notification of problems, reasonable/cooperative behavior, proactive, timely award and management of subcontracts, effective small business/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program and satisfaction with Contractor’s service.
d.) Key Personnel and Staffing (Including Subcontractors): Qualified personnel, effective performance and conduct.
Would you hire this Contractor to provide supplies/services for your organization in the future? Yes |_| No |_| Please provide comments using additional pages if desired
| _________________________________ | ____________________ | |
| Assessor’s Signature | Date |
Evaluation Definitions
The following definitions should be used in your assessment of Contractor performance.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements and exceeds/exceeded many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements and exceeds/exceeded 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/met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were satisfactory. |
| MARGINAL |
| Performance does not/did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet or did not identify corrective actions. |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| Performance does not/did not meet most contractual requirements and if currently being performed, 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. |
| NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) |
| Performance information not recent or relevant as defined in the Solicitation. Unable to provide assessment. |
DISTRIBUTION: DoW COMMUNITY ONLY
DISTRIBUTION: DoW COMMUNITY ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 DISTRIBUTION: DoW COMMUNITY ONLY
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .