L-6_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 83 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HM0476_20260105
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template used for evaluating contractor performance on the Foundation Sustainment Support, Software and Integration (FS3i) contract opportunity managed by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The document is structured in two parts: Part 1 is completed by the offeror (contractor) to identify relevant past performance references, and Part 2 is completed by government or commercial points of contact (POCs) who directly assessed the contractor's performance on those referenced contracts.
Offerors submitting proposals must identify past contracts relevant to FS3i and provide current contact information for the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer's Representative, Program Manager, and Financial Manager associated with each reference contract. For each past performance reference, offerors must indicate the contract number, award date, completion date, contract type, contract value, and estimate the percentage of work containing same or similar services. Part 2 assessment covers four performance categories rated on a five-point scale (Outstanding, Very Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable): Technical Performance (quality of services/products, staffing, and sound practices), Management Performance (schedule adherence, cost performance, and customer communication), Cost/Price Performance (accuracy of proposals and cost control), and Small Business Participation. Government POCs must submit completed assessments to Jimmy Ober at jimmy.c.ober@nga.mil by a deadline to be specified (TBD), with instructions that offerors ensure prompt contact with POCs to allow sufficient completion time. All assessment information constitutes source selection information protected under federal acquisition regulations.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| J-04 FS3i Common Services Task Order QASP 01022026.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-07 FS3i CDRLs 1423_REV_3.2.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-2_BOE Placeholder.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-5_Master_Project_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| L-10_Placeholder.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-01 FS3i_Base_PWS_v9_01022026.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-02 DD254_HM047625R0016_20250311.pdf | ||
| L-3_Key_Personnel_Resume_Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-7_Intellectual_Property_Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-05 FS3i_ Air_PWS v4.1_01022026.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-4_Small_Business_Participation_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Section_M_v3 122825.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft_HM047625R0016.pdf | ||
| J-03 FS3i_Common_Services-TO-PWS-v16_01022026.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-1_OCI_Disclosure_Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-8_Facility_Security_Clearance_Level_Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| L-9_Personnel_Security_Clearance_Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-06 FS3i Air Task Order QASP-v4.1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_L_v4 01132026.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 19
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
UNCLASSIFIED
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
HM047625R0016
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
OFFEROR INSTRUCTIONS
FS3i
(U) The Offeror shall complete PART 1 of this questionnaire and submit the entire questionnaire to the respective Government/Commercial Points of Contact (POCs) pertaining to referenced contracts for completion of PART 2.
U) Upon receipt of the questionnaire, it is incumbent upon the offeror to contact and request the Government/Commercial POCs to promptly complete their assessment of the offeror’s contractual past performance, forward the assessment to the below cited e-mail or mailing address by the below specified date and time, and agree to participate in a subsequent telephonic interview with the CO or CO’s designee.
(U) It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure that:
· (U) The information regarding their Government POCs is current, complete and accurate.
· (U) The past performance is recent and relevant.
· (U) The respective POCs receive this questionnaire promptly so as to provide the POCs with sufficient time to complete their respective assessments and return completed Part 2 of the questionnaire by TBD via e-mail to Jimmy Ober at jimmy.c.ober@nga.mil
(U) All narrative sections are Unclassified until filled in (at which time this document becomes Unclassified//FOUO).
HM047625R0016
| APPENDIX L.XX | INSERT ACQUISITION TITLE |
| INSERT DATE | SOLICITATION # [INSERT SOLICITATION #] |
AFD:\\ACP\\OCS WEBPAGE\CONTRACT POLICY\WEBPAGE CONTENT\ACQUISITION TOOLS\ PAGE 1 OF 7
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE – DIRECT INPUT ASSESSMENT_V1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
(U) PART 1—To be completed by OFFEROR
| 1. CONTRACTOR NAME |
| 3. CONTRACT NUMBER |
2. ADDRESS
4. CONTRACT VALUE
| 9. CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO) |
| 10. PHONE NUMBER |
| 11. E-MAIL ADDRESS |
| 5. AWARD DATE (DD MM YYYY) |
| 12. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) |
| 13. PHONE NUMBER |
| 14. E-MAIL ADDRESS |
| 6. COMPLETION DATE (DD MM YYYY) YYYY) |
| 15. GOVERNMENT PROGRAM MANAGER (PM) |
| 16. PHONE NUMBER |
| 17. E-MAIL ADDRESS |
| 7. CONTRACT TYPE |
| 18. GOVERNMENT FINANCE (FM) |
| 19. PHONE NUMBER |
| 20. E-MAIL ADDRESS |
| 8. FEE TYPE (IF APPLICABLE) |
21. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE REFERENCED CONTRACT AND ITS RELEVANCE TO STRATA:
| 22. ESTIMATE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE WHICH CONTAINS THE SAME OR SIMILAR SERVICES: |
| % |
| 23. DID/DOES THIS CONTRACT, TASK ORDER, OR DELIVERY ORDER INVOLVE ANY CLASSIFIED WORK? |
| YES |
| NO |
| ☐ |
| ☐ |
| 24. IF THE ANSWER TO 23. IS YES, WHAT TYPE OF CLASSIFIED WORK? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY. |
| ☐ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE |
| ☐ COLLATERAL |
| ☐ SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION |
| ☐ OTHER (I.E., SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM) |
| ☐ TOP SECRET |
| ☐ SECRET |
| 25. SIGNATURE |
| 26. TITLE |
| 27. DATE |
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
HM047625R0016
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
(U) PART 2—DIRECT INPUT ASSESSMENT
—to be completed by the Assessment Organization—
(U) [INSERT Offeror’s Name] has submitted your organization as a Government Point of Contact (POC) for the purpose of rendering information and your assessment of the contractor’s performance on the contract cited below.
(U) This is a two-step questionnaire process. The first step is the following Direct Input Assessment of the contractor’s performance. Once completed, please return this completed form, PART 1 and PART 2, to the Government CO by e-mail at jimmy.c.ober@nga.mil by TBD.
(U) Concurrently, please notify [INSERT Offeror’s Name] of your submission directly to the government.
(U) Upon receipt of your submission to the Government CO, you may be requested to participate in a brief follow-up telephonic interview as the second step in this questionnaire process. The purpose of this step is to obtain a more detailed understanding of the contractor’s performance and the assessments made.
(U) Based on your knowledge of the contract identified above, please provide your assessment of how well the contractor performed on each of the following topics. Your responses to the below questions will assist the Government in assessing the Performance Confidence Level for the subject offeror in response to this solicitation.
| 1. POC NAME: |
| 2. RANK AND SERVICE, IF MILITARY: |
| 3. DUTY TITLE: |
| 4. ORGANIZATION/OFFICE SYMBOL: |
| 5. CONTRACT #: |
| 6. POC TYPE, SELECT AS APPLICABLE |
| 7. SUBJECT CONTRACTOR NAME: |
| ☐ CONTRACTING OFFICER |
| ☐ PROGRAM MANAGER |
| 8. COMMERCIAL PHONE, NOT DSN: |
| ☐ CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE |
| ☐ FINANCIAL MANAGER/ANALYST |
| 9. FAX NUMBER: |
| ☐ OTHER (SPECIFY) _________________________________________________ |
| 10. EMAIL ADDRESS: |
| 12. SUBJECT CONTRACTOR PERFORMED AS (SELECT AS APPLICABLE) |
| ☐ PRIME CONTRACTOR |
11. OBSERVED PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (DD MMM YYYY):
FROM:
☐ SUBCONTRACTOR
TO:
☐ OTHER (SPECIFY) _____________________
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
HM047625R0016
(U) NOTE: The assessment information obtained through this questionnaire process constitutes SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Please use the below rating system in your assessment of the contractor’s performance for each of the questions. Please provide an assessment rationale to describe the ratings for each topical area. For each of the performance ratings indicated, use the following guidelines to rate each question and mark the appropriate box:
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| OUTSTANDING |
| · Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
· To justify an Exceptional 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 Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
| VERY GOOD |
| · Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
· To justify a Very 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 Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
| MARGINAL |
| · Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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. |
· 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 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 Unsatisfactory 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 Unsatisfactory 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).
| NEUTRAL |
| · No past performance information is available. The contractor did not to have perform this function, the function was not a part of the contract work statement, or in your position, you were not able to observe and assess the contractor’s performance for this function. |
Technical Performance Assessment
| Technical |
| NEUTRAL |
| OUTSTANDING |
| VERY GOOD |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| 1 |
| Quality of services/products and staffing/personnel |
| 2 |
| Capability to employ sound practices |
ASSESSMENT RATIONALE:
Management Performance Assessment
| Management |
| NEUTRAL |
| OUTSTANDING |
| VERY GOOD |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| 1 |
| Adherence to schedule |
| 2 |
| Performance |
| 3 |
| Communication between the customer and Offeror |
| Cost / Price Performance |
| NEUTRAL |
| OUTSTANDING |
| VERY GOOD |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| 1 |
| Quality and accuracy of cost/price proposals, |
documentation, and reports
| 2 |
| Cost Control |
| 3 |
| Identification and implementation of cost saving measures |
ASSESSMENT RATIONALE:
Small Business Participation Performance Assessment
| Small Business Participation |
| NEUTRAL |
| OUTSTANDING |
| VERY GOOD |
| ACCEPTABLE |
| MARGINAL |
| UNACCEPTABLE |
| 1 |
| Extent to which the Offeror has met small business participation goals, or incorporated small business participation (if no formal goals were included in the contract/task order). |
ASSESSMENT RATIONALE:
(U) This concludes your direct input assessment. Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.
TEMPLATE IS UNCLASSIFIED UNTIL MODIFIED FOR COMPLETION, AT WHICH TIME THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .