J-13-PastPerfQuestionaire(2022.11.22).docx
DOCX document 2 MB Posted
- Attached to
- USNS MEDGAR EVERS ( T-AKE 13) ROH/DD
- Solicitation number
- N3220526R6120
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire document designed to evaluate contractor experience and qualifications for the USNS MEDGAR EVERS (T-AKE 13) Repair of Hull, Deck and Machinery (ROHDD) contract opportunity with the Department of the Navy Military Sealift Command. The questionnaire serves as an evaluation tool to assess prospective contractors' historical performance on similar naval vessel repair and maintenance projects.
The document requests detailed information about contractors' previous work on comparable ship repair projects, including project scope, duration, budget performance, quality metrics, schedule adherence, and client references. Contractors are expected to demonstrate relevant experience with Hull, Deck and Machinery repairs on military or commercial vessels, crew size and qualifications, project management capabilities, and safety records. The questionnaire is a standard past performance evaluation instrument used in Navy solicitations to ensure that selected contractors possess the technical expertise, management capacity, and proven track record necessary to successfully execute complex naval vessel maintenance and repair work. This assessment is critical for the Navy's evaluation of contractor capability and risk mitigation prior to contract award for the ROHDD work on the T-AKE 13 supply ship.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| J-9-DisclosureofLobbyingActivities(1997.07).pdf | ||
| J-14-TechnicalNDA(2023.07.07).docx | DOCX document | |
| J-10-InterportDifferential(2026.04.10).docx | DOCX document | |
| J-2-Cat-A(2022.11 (version 1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-5 WORK PACKAGE REVIEW SUMMARY SHEET.pdf | ||
| J-7 MSC Ship Repair Facility Survey.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-12 Past Perf Data.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-8-RFC(2022.12.28).docx | DOCX document | |
| J-3-Cat-B(2023.11.03).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation_N3220526R6120_RFP_MEV.pdf | ||
| J-11 MSC Dry Dock Eval Form.pdf |
Show all 11
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
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 number ___________________. Specifically, we are looking for performance information in the following areas:
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 (15 September 2026 at 1400 hours, 2:00 PM Eastern) to James Parker at James.l.parker2.civ@us.navy.mil Any relevant information you have would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor.
| Thank you, |
| James Parker |
| Contracting Officer |
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.
| FACTOR |
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
TECHNICAL (QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE)
SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS
MANAGEMENT OR BUSINESS RELATIONS
SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING
OTHER (AS APPLICABLE)
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: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ Organization: _____________________________
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 .