J-6 Past Performance Questionnaires.docx
DOCX document 2 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Rolling Admission – Request for Proposals under Guam General Ship Repair IDIQ Multiple Award Contract
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire from the Military Sealift Command (MSC) used to evaluate a contractor's performance for a potential contract. The questionnaire requests detailed feedback from a reference contact, seeking ratings and comments on five key performance areas: quality of product/service, timeliness/scheduling, business relations/customer satisfaction, key personnel/staffing, and cost controls. The evaluation uses a rating scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with respondents asked to complete and return the questionnaire by 6:00pm EST on 28 June 2022 to Christina Cortez via email.
The associated federal contract opportunity is a Rolling Admission Request for Proposals for the Guam General Ship Repair Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Contract. MSC is seeking proposals from HUBZone-certified small businesses to expand their contractor pool for ship repair services. Eligible offerors must be SBA-certified HUBZone small businesses, operate under NAICS 336611, have fewer than 1,250 employees, demonstrate past performance in ship repair, and be active in SAM.gov. The scope involves providing labor, equipment, and marine repair facilities for ship repair and related functions, primarily at Naval Base Guam, with potential worldwide service support. Proposals will be evaluated on a rolling basis, with qualified contractors potentially added to the existing IDIQ multiple award contract.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N3220522R0008P00003.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-5 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities SF LLL.doc | DOC document | |
| A006 CDRL 006 Shipboard Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) Report.pdf | ||
| A001 CDRL 001 Project Planning.pdf | ||
| A002 CDRL 002 Condition Found Report.pdf | ||
| J-7 Past Performance Data Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-1 General Technical Requirements.PDF | ||
| J-2 Contractor Price Breakdown.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-3 Pre-proposal Inquiry Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-4 Technical Non-Disclosure Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| A003 CDRL 003 Work Completion Certificate.pdf | ||
| A004 CDRL 004 Ship Trials.pdf | ||
| A005 CDRL 005 Oil Discharge Report.pdf |
Show all 13
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
J-6 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
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) e.) Cost Controls (Cost Contracts Only)
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 6:00pm EST on 28 June 2022 to Christina Cortez at christina.m.cortez4.civ@us.navy.mil. Any relevant information you have would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor.
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.
e) Cost Control (COST CONTRACTS ONLY): Actual cost / rates reflect closely to negotiated cost / rates, adequate budgetary internal controls, current, accurate and complete billings
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 .