J-13 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request for Proposal - Littoral Combat Ships Continuous Maintenance and Emergent Maintenance IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- N4034521R0013
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal contractor responding to a request for proposal for Littoral Combat Ships continuous and emergent maintenance services. The questionnaire collects information on the contractor's quality, schedule, safety, and overall performance on a previous contract. It requests ratings and detailed comments for the contractor's conformance to requirements, processes for solving problems, timeliness in meeting schedules, adherence to safety standards, and level of customer satisfaction. The related federal contract opportunity solicitation seeks proposals for Littoral Combat Ships continuous maintenance and emergent maintenance indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract services to support ships deployed or operating in the Western Pacific region. Proposals are due to the Naval Supply Systems Command by the date specified in the request for proposal, which includes attachments outlining contract data requirements, statement of work details, and amendment information.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
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
N4034521R0013 Attachment 13 – Past Performance Questionnaire
Past Performance Questionnaire
Offeror:
Point of Contact
Your Company/Organization Name:
Your Name:
Position Title:
Telephone:
E-mail:
General Contract Information
a. Contract Number:
Type of contact:
☐ Firm-Fixed-Price
☐ Cost-Reimbursement
b. Brief Description of Work:
c. Location of Work:
e. Contract Performance:
From: Click here to enter a date.
To: Click here to enter a date.
f. Total Contract Value (USD):
Quality
How do you assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, statements of work, and standards of good workmanship (i.e. commonly accepted technical, professional, and quality standards)?
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
(Please provide a detailed, elaborative response. Recommend a minimum of one full paragraph.)
How do you assess the contractor’s processes to solve contract performance problems?
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
Schedule
How do you assess the contractor’s timeliness in meeting contract delivery schedules?
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
How do you assess the contractor’s processes to solve schedule performance problems?
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
Safety
How do you assess the contractor’s adherence to safety requirement (including safety of flight, workplace safety, and adherence to environmental regulations)?
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
| How do you assess the contractor’s processes to solve issues and deficiencies involving safety of flight, workplace safety, and adherence to environmental regulations? |
| ☐ Exceptional |
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
Additional Comments
Please select your overall level of customer satisfaction, considering contract work performed, promptness, completeness, follow up to correct errors, and documentation and history of reasonable and cooperative behavior.
☐ Exceptional
| ☐ Very Good |
| ☐ Satisfactory |
| ☐ Marginal |
| ☐ Unacceptable |
Reasoning / Comments:
Wrap-up Question
All things considered, would you recommend this Contractor for performance on another contract?
| ☐ Yes |
| ☐ No |
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .