PPQ_HQ0013-17-R-0003__Attachment_1.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

HQ0013-17-R-0003

Metric Alaysis Support Service

DUE: 11:00 AM July 14, 2017

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

I. EVALUATION OF OFFEROR:

Company/DivisionProviding Services:

Address:

Descriptionof Project:

Contract Number: Dollar Value(Annual):

PerformancePeriod: PerformanceLocation:

Type of Contract:

Check One:

Fixed Price CostReimbursement 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 criteri a. Circle onlyone res ponse per question.

Rating Definition Note Exceptional (4)

Performancemetcontractual To justify an “exceptional” rating, identify multiple requirements and exceeded many tothe significant events and state how they were of government’s benefit. The contractual benefit to the government. A singular benefit, performance of the element or sub however, could be of such magnitude that it alone elementbeing evaluated was merits an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should accomplished with few minorproblems for have been no significant weaknesses identified.

which corrective actions taken by the contractorwerehighlyeffective.

Very Good (3)

Performancemetcontractual To justify a “very good” rating, identify a significant requirements and exceeded some to the event and state how it was a benefit to the government’s benefit. The contractual government. There should have been no significant performance of the element or sub weaknesses identified.

elementbeingevaluated was accomplished with someminor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractorwereeffective.

Satisfactory (2)

Performancemetcontractual To justify a “satisfactory” rating, there should have requirements. Thecontractual been only minor problems, or major problems the performance of the element or sub contractor recovered from without impact tothe element contained some minor problems contract/order. There should have been no for which corrective actions taken by the significantweaknessesidentified.Afundamental contractor appeared to be or were principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will satisfactory. not be evaluated with a rating lower than

“satisfactory” solely for not performing beyond the requirements ofthecontract/order.

Marginal (1)

Performance did not meet some To justify a “marginal” performance rating, identify contractual requirements. Thecontractual a significant event in each category that the performance of the element or sub contractor had troubleovercoming and state how elementbeing evaluated reflected a it affected the government. A “marginal” rating serious problem for which the contractor should be supported by referencing the did not identify corrective actions. The management tool that notified the contractor of contractor’sproposed actionswere only thecontractual deficiency (e.g., management, marginally effective or were not fully quality, safety, orenvironmentaldeficiencyreport implemented. or letter).

Unsatisfactory (0)

Performance did not meet most To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify contractualrequirementsandrecovery multiplesignificant events in each category that was not accomplished in a timely manner. the contractor had trouble overcoming and state The contractual performance ofthe how it affected the government. A singular element or sub element contained a problem, however, could be of such serious serious problem(s) for which the magnitude that it alone merits an “unsatisfactory” contractor’s correctiveactionswere rating. An “unsatisfactory” rating should be ineffective. supported by referencingthemanagement tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies(e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiencyreport or letter.

IV. QUESTIONS:

Question ponse

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.Evaluatethecontractor's overall technical competence.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

3. Evaluate the contractor's cooperation and willingness to work asa team (with yourpersonnel,other contractors,etc.).

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

4.Evaluatethecontractor's compliancewithcontractualrequirements.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

5.Evaluatethecontractor's responsiveness tocontract, programand/or schedule changes.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

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

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

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

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory

Question ponse

8. Evaluate the effectiveness ofthe contractor's managementandsupervision.

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

9. Evaluate the contractor's ability to overcome technical problems, laborissues, and/orotherperformance difficulties.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

10. Evaluate the contractor's ability to plan andconduct operations in the most effectivemanner.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

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

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

12. Evaluate the qualityand stability of the contractor's workforce andcontinuity of services.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory

1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory N/A

13. Evaluatethe availability, adequacy, andsuitability of the contractor's staffing for thework required.

3 – Very Good 2 – Satisfactory 1 – Marginal 0 – Unsatisfactory