J-13- Past Perf Questionaire.docx
DOCX document 2 MB Posted
- Attached to
- USNS ROBERT E. PEARY (T-AKE 5) Regular Overhaul (ROH) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N3220521R4125
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and reference request related to a federal solicitation for ship overhaul services. The Military Sealift Command is soliciting offers for contract N3220521R4125 to provide regular overhaul services for the USNS ROBERT E. PEARY (T-AKE 5). Offerors are required to provide references from previous contracts, who will receive a past performance questionnaire to evaluate the offeror's quality of service, timeliness, business relations, and staffing. The questionnaire responses must be returned to Molly Dickson at the Military Sealift Command by the closing date of the solicitation. Ratings include exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal and unsatisfactory. The questionnaire also allows comments on whether the reference would hire the offeror for future work.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
ATTACHMENT J-13
TO: EMAIL:
PHONE:
INFORMATION REQUEST
Military Sealift Command (MSC) is currently in the process of soliciting offers for a contract. ____________________ has provided your name and organization as a reference regarding their record of past performance under Contract No. ___________________. Specifically, we are looking for performance information in the following areas:
a.) Quality of Product or Service b.) Timeliness or Scheduling of Service/Deliveries c.) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction d.) Key Personnel and Staffing (Including Subcontractors)
In order for our team to compile its evaluation, we request that you complete the attached questionnaire and email it, and any other pertinent information, by BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION to Molly Dickson at molly.dickson@navy.mil. Any relevant information you have would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor.
| Thank you, |
| Molly Dickson |
| Contract Specialist |
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACTOR NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER:
EVALUATION PERIOD: DELIVERY ORDER NO.:
1. Please describe the service/supply provided by the Contractor for your organiation.
2. Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the following ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. See next page for definition of ratings. For ratings of “Exceptional” or “Unsatisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING
Please provide an overall rating of the Contractor’s performance for the referenced contract/delivery order.
a.) Quality of Product or Service: Conformance to contract requirements, appropriateness of personnel, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence b.) Timeliness or Scheduling of Supplies/Deliveries: Timeliness of performance, met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical and contractual direction as to scheduling.
c.) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction: Effective management, prompt notification of problems, reasonable/cooperative behavior, proactive, timely award and management of subcontracts, effective small business/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program and satisfaction with Contractor’s service.
d.) Key Personnel and Staffing (Including Subcontractors): Qualified personnel, effective performance and conduct.
3. Would you hire this Contractor to provide supplies/services for your organization in the future? Yes |_| No |_| Please provide comments using additional pages if desired.
Signed:__________________________________
DEFINITION OF RATINGS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements and exceeds/exceeded many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements and exceeds/exceeded some to the Customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not/did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet or did not identify corrective actions. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not/did not meet most contractual requirements and if currently being performed, recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .