L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire_N00024-23-R-2101.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- In-Service Carriers Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) Fire Watch Support - Request for Proposal (RFP)
- Solicitation number
- N00024-23-R-2101
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
Contract 1
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR SOLICITATION
N00024-23-R-2101
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: | ||
| EVALUATION PERIOD: | DELIVERY ORDER NO. (if applicable): | ||
| GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE: | |||
| Name: | Code: | Date: | |
| Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided. Please insert a ‘X’ in the box that most closely reflects your opinion. Past Performance Ratings are defined below. NOTE: For statements indicating No Confidence or for any additional narratives, explanation may be provided in the box at the end of the survey. |
| Substantial Confidence | Satisfactory | Limited | No Confidence | Unknown | |
| (a) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship |
(b) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(c) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
(d) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(e) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
(f) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(g) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(h) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(i) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
(j) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(k) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(l) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(m) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(n) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(o) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
| Total: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rating Description |
Substantial Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence -Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: |
| NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: |
Contract 2
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR SOLICITATION
N00024-23-R-2101
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: | ||
| EVALUATION PERIOD: | DELIVERY ORDER NO. (if applicable): | ||
| GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE: | |||
| Name: | Code: | Date: | |
| Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided. Please insert a ‘X’ in the box that most closely reflects your opinion. Past Performance Ratings are defined below. NOTE: For statements indicating No Confidence or for any additional narratives, explanation may be provided in the box at the end of the survey. |
| Substantial Confidence | Satisfactory | Limited | No Confidence | Unknown | |
| (a) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship |
(b) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(c) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
(d) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(e) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
(f) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(g) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(h) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(i) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
(j) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(k) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(l) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(m) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(n) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(o) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
| Total: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rating Description |
Substantial Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence -Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: |
| NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: |
Contract 3
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR SOLICITATION
N00024-23-R-2101
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: | ||
| EVALUATION PERIOD: | DELIVERY ORDER NO. (if applicable): | ||
| GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE: | |||
| Name: | Code: | Date: | |
| Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided. Please insert a ‘X’ in the box that most closely reflects your opinion. Past Performance Ratings are defined below. NOTE: For statements indicating No Confidence or for any additional narratives, explanation may be provided in the box at the end of the survey. |
| Substantial Confidence | Satisfactory | Limited | No Confidence | Unknown | |
| (a) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship |
(b) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(c) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
(d) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(e) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
(f) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(g) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(h) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(i) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
(j) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(k) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the COR and/or Technical Point of Contact were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(l) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(m) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(n) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(o) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
| Total: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rating Description |
Substantial Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence -Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
| CONTRACTOR NAME: | CONTRACT NUMBER: |
| NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .