Attachment_3_-_PPQ.pdf

Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation Number: HSCG23-17-R-MCM022 (Attachment 3)

Offeror Being Evaluated

Entity Completing Questionnaire

Contract Number

Delivery Order/Task Order Number

Evaluator Point of Contact

Length of Involvement with Offeror/ Period of Performance

Deliverable / Service Description

EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a requirement to provide contractor support services, as follows, but not limited to: analysis, design, development, evaluation and implementation services for performance improvement products for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Office of Cutter Forces (CG-751) for cutter individual qualification programs (IQPs): Watchstation Qualification Standards (WQS), Personnel Qualification Systems (PQS), and Job Qualification Requirements (JQR).

This questionnaire will be used by the Contract Specialist to obtain past performance information from a reference listed in the Vendor’s quote.

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 the rating using the following rating guidelines. Space is provided for comments.

Submit completed Cover Sheet and Questionnaire by proposal the due date on or before 2:00 PM ET, Friday, August 18, 2017, by e-mail:

ATTN: Michelle Faseru and Jackson McClam Email: Michelle.Faseru@uscg.mil and Jackson.mcclam@uscg.mil

Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition Note Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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 constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 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 was 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 Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear 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 Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted 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 Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes 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 reports, or letters).

1. Quality of Support Services

Overall Rating:

_ Unsatisfactory _ Marginal _ Satisfactory _ Very Good _ Exceptional

Government Comments for Quality of Product or Service:

2. Adherence to Schedule

Government Comments for Schedule:

3. Management

Overall Rating:

Government Comments for Management of Key Personnel:

4. Customer Satisfaction

Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?

_ definitely would not _ probably would not _ might or might not _ probably would _ definitely would