Attachment_3_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_Rating_Sheet.docx

HSCG23-16-R-MNQ080 – ATTACHMENT 3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET

SOLICITATION NUMBER: HSCG23-16-R-MNQ080

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 the acquisition of approximately 25,000 dry suits. 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 the proposal due date by e-mail to:

Ryan Shaughnessy Email: Ryan.W.Shaughnessy@uscg.mil Phone: (202) 475-3235

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 “N/A”.

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 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 were ineffective.

NEUTRAL - No relevant past performance is available for this Offeror (please explain).

a) QUALITY OF PRODUCT:

(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship to include watertight integrity, mobility, heat dissipation, and durability.

b) PRICE CONTROL:

(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated price.

(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.

c) TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

(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 Representative (COR) 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, COR 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 COR.

(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.

COMMENTS: