B2. 01RFP Sec J Attachment 6 PPQ.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY Electronics Manufacturing Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00014-20-R-0006
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and evaluation form related to a solicitation for manufacturing technology services. The Navy seeks proposals to improve manufacturing quality, productivity, technology and practices for key acquisition platforms including aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, submarines and joint strike fighters. Proposals should address production or manufacturing technology issues. The Navy will execute projects through seven Centers of Excellence using an acquisition platform approach to develop cost reduction portfolios and specific projects. The evaluation form rates offerors' past performance on quality, cost control, schedule, business relationships, management and customer satisfaction. Comments provide additional context for ratings other than satisfactory.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Name of Contractor questionnaire is being completed for:
(2) Contract Number:
| (3) Role Contractor played in Prior Contract |
| Prime |
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
| (4) Proposed Role in Pending Contract |
| Prime |
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(5) Length of time your agency/firm has been involved with the Offeror:
(6) Contract type:
(7) Contract value:
(8) Description of service:
| 9) Is Performance on this contract being reported in CPARS |
| No, complete page 3 of questionnaire |
| Yes, answer question (i) below |
(i) Has the scope of work significantly changed since the last CPAR?
| No |
| Yes, provide details in (iv) below |
(ii) Have there been any significant changes in contractor performance between the last CPAR and now?
No
Yes, answer question (iii) below
| (iii) Has an out-of-cycle CPAR been initiated to document changes in performance? |
| No, provide details of changes in (iv) below |
Yes
(iv) Comments to support answers to questions (i), (ii) and (iii):
(10) Name of agency/company completing questionnaire:
(11) Name of person completing questionnaire:
(12) Email address of person completing questionnaire:
(13) Title of person completing questionnaire:
(14) Phone number of person completing questionnaire:
(15) Date questionnaire is being completed:
N00014-20-R-0006 Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Attachment 6
RATING SCALE: Please use the following ratings to answer the questions on page 2.
| Rating |
| Definition |
Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or |
sub-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 contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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 contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Neutral |
| No record exists. |
| N/A |
| (Not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation |
NOTE: For ratings indicating less than “Satisfactory” or above “Satisfactory”, a narrative supporting the reason for the rating must be provided in the comments section of the survey.
| CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |
| N/A |
| Neutral |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
a.) QUALITY OF SERVICE:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
b.) COST CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
c.) SCHEDULE:
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.
e.) MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL:
(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.
(2) The Contractor proposed qualified personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract.
f.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The services provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
COMMENTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .