D1-Att_1-Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Telephone Maintenance Competitive 8(a) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- M00681-21-Q-0019
- Issued by
- United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document includes a past performance questionnaire and details of a related federal contract opportunity. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by a government assessor to provide performance ratings and comments for an incumbent contractor. It requests feedback on quality, schedule, cost control, management and other areas for a previous telephone maintenance support services contract with the United States Marine Corps at Miramar. The related federal contract opportunity is a competitive 8(a) set-aside solicitation issued by the Marine Corps for telephone maintenance services. The NAICS code is 811213 and responses are due by the date specified.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| M00681-21-Q-0019 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| M00681-21-Q-0019 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| M00681-21-Q-0019-Amendment-0001.pdf | ||
| Att_4-List Configuration All.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att_3-QPR_20210210110140.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A1-DRAFT_QASP-Mir_Tel_maint.pdf | ||
| D1-M0068121Q0019-Miramar Telephone Solicitation.pdf | ||
| D1-Att_2-Past_Performance_Worksheet.pdf |
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
Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire
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 Crespo, Jody.Crespo@usmc.mil and Diana Lynch-Maldonado, Diana.Lynch-Maldona@usmc.mil by February XX, 2021.
Instructions:
· Sections I through II are 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, is to verify Sections I through II, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office.
· Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Sections III are to be completed in their entirety by the assessor unless a CPARS report is available.
You are requested to provide both a “Rating” and a “Narrative” explanation to support the rating in each of the areas of evaluation annotated below. It is important that your narratives accurately support the ratings you give below. The Ratings Definition chart located on the last page of this document can assist you in writing your narratives. You may also contact the contract specialist if you have any questions.
I. Solicitation Data (for proposed effort) Is there a current Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report available:
|_| Yes |_| No
| Solicitation Number |
| M00681-21-Q-00XX |
| Project/Requirement |
| Miramar Telephone Maintenance Support Services |
| Customer/Agency |
| S-6 Miramar / USMC |
| Project/Requirement Description |
| CM6 Telephone Maintenance |
II. Current or Historical Contract Information Contractor:
Contract Number:
Period of Performance Being Evaluated:
Name of Performance Evaluator:
II. Performance Evaluation
Quality of Product or Service |_|Outstanding |_| Good |_|Acceptable |_|Marginal |_|Unacceptable
Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements. Include, as applicable, information on the following:
• Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract?
• Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted industry standards?
• What degree of Government technical direction—if any—was required to solve problems that arose during performance?
Enter Comments:
Schedule |_|Outstanding |_| Good |_|Acceptable |_|Marginal |_|Unacceptable
Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).
This assessment of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contributes to or affects the schedule variance.
Cost Control |_|Outstanding |_| Good |_|Acceptable |_|Marginal |_|Unacceptable
Enter Comments: (N/A if Contract Contains only Firm Fixed Price Contract Line Item Numbers)
Management |_|Outstanding |_| Good |_|Acceptable |_|Marginal |_|Unacceptable
Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. Include, as applicable, information on the following:
• Is the contractor oriented toward the customer?
· How responsive is the customer to addressing problems identified by the government?
· How proactive is the customer at addressing potential issues?
• Is interaction between the contractor and the government satisfactory or does it need improvement?
Other Areas |_|Outstanding |_| Good |_|Acceptable |_|Marginal |_|Unacceptable
Is there a special event/accomplishment worthy of separate evaluation or that cannot be captured elsewhere on the form? (i.e. response to safety incident, hurricane, property, project review)
Enter Comments
Overall Performance Review:
Evaluation Ratings Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Outstanding |
| 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 was highly effective. |
| To justify an Outstanding rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Outstanding rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| 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 was effective. |
| To justify a Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Acceptable |
| 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. |
| To justify a Acceptable rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| 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 identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that t notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| Unacceptable |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective |
| To justify an Unacceptable rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unacceptable rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .