Attachment_5_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 36 KB Posted

Attached to
C-17 GROUND HANDLING ENGINE TRAILERS
Solicitation number
FA8526-19-R-0005
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire template for evaluation of contractor performance on federal contracts. The template includes sample questions in sections related to technical performance, program management, and general comments. It requests ratings on a scale of exceptional to unsatisfactory for contractor performance in meeting technical requirements, quality of work, schedule adherence, and management of subcontractors or government property. The respondent identification section collects information on the evaluating official's role and time working with the contractor. This appears to be a generic template and does not specify any particular procurement.

ATTACHMENT 5-PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Attachment_10_GFP_List.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATTACHMENT_4_Consent_Form.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT_9_SUPPLEMENTAL_FIRST_ARTICLE_GUIDANCE.pdf PDF
FA8526-19-R-0005.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT_2_Client_Authorization_Letter.docx DOCX document
Attachment_8_CDRL_Package.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT_3_Transmittal_Letter.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT_1_FACTS.pdf PDF
Attachment_7_DD1652_TRANSPORTATION.doc DOC document
Attachment_6_Form_158_PACKAGING.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

For Official Use Only When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

RFP Attachment 6: Past Performance Questionnaire Section 1: Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract Number:

D. Contract Type (e.g., FFP, FPIF, CPIF, CPFF, etc.):

E. Program Title:

F. Brief Program Description:

G. Program Phase (e.g., Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)):

H. Period of Performance

1. Original Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date _________ through ____________

2. Current Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date _________ through ____________

3. Reason for difference (if applicable):

I. Contract Dollar Value

1. Original maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

3. Reasons for difference between original and current contract dollar value (if applicable):

J. Description of work performed:

K. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No

L. Contractor’s Role: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor ☐ Key Personnel

Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of services under this contract (i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands):

Section 3: Respondent Identification

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

C. Respondent’s phone number / fax number / e-mail address:

D. Respondent’s position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO, etc.):

E. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:

F. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the tables below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question. Provide supporting information for each response in the space provided. If supporting documentation is not provided for ratings that are other than “satisfactory,” the ratings will be considered to be unsubstantiated and will be interpreted as satisfactory. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. The performance rating scale is defined as follows:

Code Performance Rating

E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.

Note: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” but instead include probing and direct questions to draw out the required information desired.

Technical Performance
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How was the quality of technical system operations & maintenance testing and certification efforts?

T3. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?

T4. How adequate/effective was the System Engineering Process?

T5. How well did the contractor implement current quality processes, standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?

T6. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?

Program Management
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

P1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

P5. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

P6. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?

P7. How effective was the contractor’s acquisition management?

P8. Did the contractor deliver in accordance with the contract schedule? If not, did the contractor notify the customer ahead of time?

Government Contracts Only: Was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience, or are there any pending terminations?

☐ Yes ☐ Default ☐ Convenience ☐ Pending Terminations ☐ No

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).

SECTION 5: GENERAL COMMENT

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I [ click and select an item ] award to him today given that I had a choice.

REMARKS:

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

[click and pick the date]

Respondent’s Signature Date

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 5

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .