J.6 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown: Mid-Life Refit Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 1305M221RNMAN01155
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract opportunity for the mid-life refit of the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown.
The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by a reference for offerors bidding on the mid-life refit contract opportunity. It requests ratings and comments on the offeror's past performance in areas such as quality of service, schedule, cost control, and management. Completed questionnaires must be returned by August 6, 2021 to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist at NOAA.
The federal contract opportunity is for a firm fixed-price contract to complete a mid-life refit of the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown. The refit will upgrade or overhaul many of the ship's systems, including repowering, bow thrusters, science equipment, piping, and steel replacements. The solicitation was issued by NOAA within the Department of Commerce, with inquiries due by June 28, 2021 and proposals by August 6, 2021. The refit work is to be competed using FAR Part 12 for commercial items and FAR Part 15 for negotiations.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown: Mid-Life Refit has more files on GovTribe.
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
| REFERENCE CONTRACT #: | _______________________________ | |
| (the contract the evaluation is based on) |
Evaluator’s Name:___________________________
Evaluator’s email: ____________________ Evaluator’s Phone Number: _______________
Evaluator’s Agency or Company Name: ____________________________
Send Completed Questionnaire to both the Contracting Officer, Andrew Northcutt and the Contract Specialist, Jessica Loftus, via email at Andrew.Northcutt@noaa.gov and Jessica.Loftus@noaa.gov no later than 12:00 PM ET, August 6, 2021
1. QUALITY OF SERVICE
Assess the contractor’s performance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, or environmental standards).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
| Rating |
| Adjectival |
Rating Description
| Exceptional |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding. |
| Very Good |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract. |
| Satisfactory |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract. |
| Neutral |
| The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable. |
| Marginal |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight. |
Comments:
Solicitation #: 1305M218RNMAN0027 Attachment: J.6
Solicitation #: 1305M221RNMAN01155 Attachment: J.6
Source Selection Information
Source Selection Information
2. SCHEDULE
Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
| Rating |
| Adjectival |
Description
| Exceptional |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding. |
| Very Good |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract. |
| Satisfactory |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract. |
| Neutral |
| The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable. |
| Marginal |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight. |
3. COST CONTROL
Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost. (Check the appropriate rating box.)
| Rating |
| Adjectival |
Description
| Exceptional |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding. |
| Very Good |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract. |
| Satisfactory |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract. |
| Neutral |
| The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable. |
| Marginal |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight. |
4. MANAGEMENT
Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, and customer satisfaction.
(Check the appropriate rating box.)
| Rating |
| Adjectival |
Description
| Exceptional |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was consistently of the highest quality and exceeded all contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of prior contract(s) were very few in number and/or very minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were highly effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor’s performance on the contemplated contract will be outstanding. |
| Very Good |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of high quality and met all contractual requirements, while exceeding some contractual requirements to the customer’s benefit. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were few in number and/or or minor in nature, and any corrective actions taken were effective. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be very successful in performing the contemplated contract. |
| Satisfactory |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of adequate or better quality and met contractual requirements. Any problems encountered during performance of the prior contract(s) were addressed and corrective actions taken were effective for the most part. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that the contractor will be successful in performing the contract. |
| Neutral |
| The offeror lacks a record of recent, relevant, or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. A rating of neutral is neither favorable nor unfavorable. |
| Marginal |
| The offeror’s performance on previously awarded, recent, relevant contract(s) was of low quality and did not meet some contractual requirements. The offeror’s performance reflected some serious problems that the offeror failed to identify, failed to correct in a timely manner, and/or took corrective actions that were only partially effective. Performance of completed contract(s) was consistently of mediocre quality. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance of the contemplated contract may be difficult without high levels of Government management and oversight. |
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY:
Rater’s Name: Rater’s Signature: Date:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .