Sec L Atch L-2 Past Performance Reference List Worksheet 04.25.12.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ0147-11-R-0006
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
SECTION L - ATTACHMENT L-2 PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE LIST
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 79 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| Offeror: | Yes (Y)/No (N) | (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, Not Applicable) | (Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant) | ||||
| Contracts | |||||||
| (Replace generic information with w/specific contractor names, contract numbers and contract titles) | Recency | Quality | Relevancy |
Technical Factor Management Factor Overall Rating Technical Factor Management Factor Cost/Price Factor Period of Performance Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 4 Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 4 Contract Type Total Contract Value
Prime Contract 1 Y E VG E N/A S S VG R VR VR VR R R CPAF $200M 5
Contract 2 N
Contract 3
Contract 4
Contract 5
Subcontractor 1 Contract 1
Contract 2
Subcontractor 2 Contract 1
Contract 2
Subcontractor 3 Contract 1
Contract 2
Subcontractor 4 Contract 1
Contract 2
Subcontractor 5 Contract 1
Contract 2
| OVERALL PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATING: |
| Exceptional/High Confidence, Very Good/Significant Confidence, Satisfactory/Confidence, Maginal/Little Confidence, Unsatisfactory/No Confidence, Neutral/Unknown Confidence |
| Quality Assessment | Past Performance Relevancy Ratings | ||
| Degree | Description | ||
| Exceptional (E) | Quality of performance exceeded all contractual requirements and expectations. The contract performance specification was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The contractor was proactive in identification of problems, providing alternatives and recommendations. | Rating | Definition |
| Very Good (VG) | Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many expectations. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. | Very Relevant (VR) | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Satisfactory (S) | Quality of performance met contractual requirements. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. | Relevant (R) | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Marginal (M) | Quality of performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contract scope of work had some serious problems which the contractor did not resolve to the customer’s satisfaction. The contractor’s proposed corrective actions appeared to be only marginally effective or were not fully implemented by the contractor. | Somewhat Relevant (SR) | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Unsatisfactory (U) | Quality of performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contract scope of work performance had major problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. | Not Relevant (NR) | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Applicable (N/A) | The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the evaluation. |
Performance Confidence Assessments
| Rating | Description |
| Substantial Confidence | Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Limited Confidence | Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence | Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
| Unknown Confidence (Neutral) | No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. |
Attachment L-2, RFP HQ0147-11-R-0006
Tailor this template based on the number of primes and subs in the competition.
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .