PastPerformance5AXIS.doc
DOC document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 5 AXIS VERTICAL GRINDING MACHINE
- Solicitation number
- FA8224-08-R-5016
About this file
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 08R50160004.pdf | ||
| Purchasespec5axis(6)3-10-08.doc | DOC document | |
| Purchasespec5axis030408(6).doc | DOC document | |
| 08R50160003.pdf | ||
| Questions answers5016.doc | DOC document | |
| AMEND000208-R-5016.pdf | ||
| REVISEDSPECIFICATIONS5016.pdf | ||
| Amendment08-R-5016.pdf | ||
| 5AXISPURCHASESPECS.pdf | ||
| FA8224-08-R-5016.doc | DOC document | |
| 1423'S5AXIS.pdf |
Show all 11
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/INTERVIEW
For
FA8224-08-R-5016
5 AXIS VERTICAL GRINDER
Contractor:
Contract Number:
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price
P.O.C. Name:
P.O.C. Address/Office Symbol
P.O.X. Phone Number:
Period of Performance:
The ratings used in the evaluation of performance are as follows:
Rating
Performance Levels 1-4 Excellent : Indicates the contractor’s performance within the area of
Evaluation clearly exceeds contractual requirements of same or similar type item(s). Please specify if same or similar.
5-9
Good: Indicates no problems exist in evaluation or has only minor for which solutions are in hand.
10-14 Fair : Indicates the area of evaluation contains an existing problem(s) which there is doubt whether the identified solution is adequate, but the problem(s) appears to be within the contractor’s ability to resolve.
15-20 Poor: Indicates a serious problem exists in evaluation areas which may be outside the contractor’s ability to solve. The contractor is in danger of not being able to satisfy contractual requirements and timely recovery is not likely.
Please explain the contract requirements, purpose and technology:
1. Did the contractor demonstrate a thorough understanding of the
Rating requirements of the contract?
2. Did the contractor’s quality control program provide an effective method Rating for preventing deficiencies and correcting existing deficiencies?
3. Was the contractor responsive and successful in resolving problems
Rating or answering questions in a timely manner?
4. Did the contractor meet the delivery date in accordance with the original Rating contract date?
5. Did the product supplied by the contractor meet the specified performance Rating requirements?
6. Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction throughout the
Rating period of performance?
7. Did the contractor perform the requirements within the original contracted Rating costs or were adjustments made? Were any of the adjustments caused by the contractor? Please explain.
8. Did the contractor respond positively and promptly to technical directions, Rating contract change orders, negotiations, and in resolving other issues?
9. Based on the contractor’s past performance, would you award this company another contract?
YES:
NO (If no please explain)
10. What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in performance of this contract?
11. What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in performance of this contract?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .