PPQ.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

HQ0013-16-R-0001

Warehouse Logistics and Management service

DUE: 2:00 PM November 30, 2015

(Note: Complete questionnaire and email to Ali Beshir at ali.beshir@dsca.mil)

I. EVALUATION OF OFFEROR:

Company/Division Providing Services:

Address:

Description of Project:

Contract Number: Dollar Value (Annual):

Performance Period: Performance Location:

Type of Contract:

Check One:

Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Time & Material Other (Please Specify):

Type & Extent of Subcontracting:

II. EVALUATED BY:

Company/Organization/Address:

Name & Title:

Signature: Date:

Telephone: FAX:

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Please answer questions 1 through 13 using the following criteria. Circle only one response per question.

Rating Definition Note

Exceptional (4)

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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 merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good (3)

Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded 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.

Satisfactory (2)

Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared to be 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. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than “satisfactory” solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Marginal (1)

Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected 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).

Unsatisfactory (0)

Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not accomplished in a timely manner.

The contractual performance of the element or sub element contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it affected the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone merits 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 report or letter.

IV. QUESTIONS:

Question Response

1. Evaluate the contractor's overall commitment to quality performance and customer satisfaction.

Comment:

4 – Exceptional 3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

2. Evaluate the contractor's overall technical competence.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

3. Evaluate the contractor's cooperation and willingness to work as a team (with your personnel, other contractors, etc.).

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

4. Evaluate the contractor's compliance with contractual requirements.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

5. Evaluate the contractor's responsiveness to contract, program and/or schedule changes.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor's overall quality control procedures.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

7. Evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor's safety program or efforts.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

Question Response

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor's management and supervision.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

9. Evaluate the contractor's ability to overcome technical problems, labor issues, and/or other performance difficulties.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

10. Evaluate the contractor's ability to plan and conduct operations in the most effective manner.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

11. Evaluate the contractor's ability to adhere to schedules and complete work on time.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

12. Evaluate the quality and stability of the contractor's workforce and continuity of services.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

13. Evaluate the availability, adequacy, and suitability of the contractor's staffing for the work required.

2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory