Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ONR Code 32 Admin/FM/Technical Support for Organization Code 032/Ocean Battlespace Sensing
- Solicitation number
- N0001426R3002
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed for the Office of Naval Research solicitation N0001426R3002 regarding Code 32 Administrative, Financial Management, and Technical Support for Organization Code 032/Ocean Battlespace Sensing. The questionnaire is to be completed by government clients or Contracting Officers' Representatives (CORs) who have prior experience with prospective contractors and must be submitted directly to Dunia Hickey or Vivian Truman at specified Navy email addresses on or before the solicitation closing date.
The questionnaire collects contractor identification information, contract history details (contract number, type, value, and role), and requires respondents to evaluate past performance using a five-tier rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) across six primary evaluation categories: Quality of Service, Cost Control, Schedule, Business Relationships, Management of Key Personnel, and Customer Satisfaction. Each category contains multiple sub-elements addressing specific performance factors such as conformance to specifications, cost efficiency, timeliness, communication effectiveness, personnel stability, and overall customer satisfaction. Ratings below Satisfactory or above Satisfactory require detailed narrative justification. The form requests completion information including the questionnaire preparer's name, title, email, phone number, and date, and explicitly notes that CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) reporting status must be addressed with supporting documentation if the scope of work or performance has significantly changed since the last assessment.
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
N0001426R3002, Attachment 5, PPQ
From: Office of Naval Research
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAGE FOR SERVICES
FOR SOLICITATION:
Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be e-mailed directly from the client (POC/COR) to Dunia Hickey at dunia.a.hickey.civ@ us.navy.mil and mailto:vivian.m.truman2.civ@us.navy.mil vivian.m.truman2.civ@us.navy.mil on or prior to the closing date of this solicitation.
(1) Name of Contractor questionnaire is being completed for:
(2) Contract Number:
(3) Role Contractor played in Prior Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(4) Proposed Role in Pending Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(5) Length of time your agency/firm has been involved with the Offeror:
(6) Contract type:
(7) Contract value:
(8) Description of service:
(9) Is Performance on this contract being reported in CPARS
No, complete page 2 of questionnaire
Yes, answer question (i) below
(i) Has the scope of work significantly changed since the last CPAR?
No
Yes, provide details in (iv) below
(ii) Have there been any significant changes in contractor performance between the last CPAR and now?
No
Yes, answer question (iii) below
(iii) Has an out-of-cycle CPAR been initiated to document changes in performance?
No, provide details of changes in (iv) below
Yes
(iv) Comments to support answers to questions (i), (ii) and (iii):
(10) Name of agency/company completing questionnaire:
(11) Name of person completing questionnaire:
(12) Email address of person completing questionnaire:
(13) Title of person completing questionnaire:
(14) Phone number of person completing questionnaire:
(15) Date questionnaire is being completed:
RATING SCALE: Please use the following ratings to answer the questions on page 2.
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Neutral |
| No record exists. |
| N/A |
| (Not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation |
NOTE: For ratings indicating less than “Satisfactory” or above “Satisfactory”, a supporting narrative justification is required in the comments section of the survey for each section below, detailing the reasoning for the rating for each section.
| CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR SERVICES |
| N/A |
| Neutral |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
a.) QUALITY OF SERVICE:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
b.) COST CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.
(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
c.) SCHEDULE:
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(5) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
(6) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
(7) The Contractor demonstrated an effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program.
e.) MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL:
(1) The labor turnover in key personnel labor categories was minimal and did not adversely affect Contractor performance.
(2) The Contractor proposed qualified personnel to fulfill the requirements of the contract.
f.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The services provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
COMMENTS:
Note: For ratings indicating less than “Satisfactory” or above “Satisfactory”, a supporting narrative justification is required in the comments section of the survey for each section above, detailing the reasoning for the rating for each section. (add additional pages as necessary for comments)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .