CKU 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 35 KB Posted

Attached to
CKU-5 Parts
Solicitation number
N0017425R1013
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for Solicitation Number N0017425R1013, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD). The questionnaire is designed to evaluate a contractor's performance across multiple criteria including customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, and quality. The rating scale ranges from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with a Neutral option for contractors lacking relevant past performance records.

The questionnaire requires detailed subjective responses regarding contractor recommendations and potential unique problems. It is specifically related to the CKU-5 Parts solicitation, with the submission deadline addressed in an amendment dated 11 August 2025. The document is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of a contractor's performance capabilities, allowing the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command to make informed selection decisions for future contract opportunities.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
N0017425R10130002 - Amendment 2.pdf PDF
N0017425R10130001.pdf PDF
CDRL A001_Redacted.pdf PDF
CDRL A003_Redacted.pdf PDF
CKU 5 - Past Performance Matrix.docx DOCX document
CKU5 - Contract Administration Plan.docx DOCX document
CDRL A004_Redacted.pdf PDF
Solicitation - N0017425R1013.pdf PDF
QBL Initial and Follow-up Survey.pdf PDF
CDRL A002_Redacted.pdf PDF

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 2

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N0017425R1013

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:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD) 4081 North Jackson Road Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 Email address: claudia.p.segura2.civ@us.navy.mil

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 .