FBO-CombinedSynopsis-Solicitation_RFP-AttchD(PPQ)_MSA051.pdf
PDF 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Classroom Small Arms Weapons Simulator
- Solicitation number
- HSCG23-09-R-MSA051
About this file
CombinedSynopsis-Solicitation_RFP-AttchD(PPQ)_MSA051.doc
View the file
Other files
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
HSCG23-09-R-MSA051 ATTACHMENT D
RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE COVER SHEET
For Solicitation No: HSCG23-09-R-MSA051
Offeror Being Evaluated
Company Completing Questionnaire
Contract Number
Delivery Order/Task Order Number
Evaluator Point of Contact
Length of Involvement with Offeror (NTE 3 Years)
Deliverable / Service Description
EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a requirement for Small Arms Classroom Simulators for the Small Arms Directorate, (CG-7D). This questionnaire will be used by the Contract Specialist to obtain past performance information from a reference listed in the Offeror’s proposal.
Please provide your assessment of the company’s level of past performance on the contract for which you are a reference. Mark the appropriate block, indicating whether the contractor’s/sub-contractor’s past performance was superior, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, or no rating using the following rating guidelines. Space is provided for comments.
Submit completed Cover Sheet and Questionnaire by no later than 18 August 2009 (five days after proposal submission date), by e-mail to:
ATTN: Mr. Todd W. Blose, CG-9122 Email: Todd.W.Blose@uscg.mil
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET
SOLICITATION NUMBER: HSCG23-09-R-MSA051
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “NA”.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Superior - The offeror’s performance was consistently superior. The contractual performance was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor was highly effective.
Satisfactory - The offeror’s performance was better than average, and you would willingly do business with the offeror again. The contractual performance was accomplished with minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Marginal - The offeror’s performance was satisfactory and consideration would take part in awarding a contract to the offeror again. The contractual performance reflects a problem for which the contractor has not yet implemented corrective actions.
Unsatisfactory - The offeror’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and you would not do business with the offeror again under any circumstances. The contractual performance being assessed contains problems for which the contractor‘s corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective.
No Rating - No relevant past performance is available for this offeror (please explain).
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Superior Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory No Rating a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.
b.) COST CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
c.) SCHEDULE:
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) and/or Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) were apprised of technical, pricing, and schedule issues.
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the TPOC, COTR and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Client in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
e.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The products provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the TPOC or the
COTR.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
COMMENTS:
| Offeror Being Evaluated |
| Company Completing Questionnaire |
| SOLICITATION NUMBER: HSCG23-09-R-MSA051 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .