J-13_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc

N00024-13-R-3041 Attachment 5

N00024-16-R-2321 J-13

Recent and Relevant Past Performance Questionnaire

1. Past Performance Assessment. The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Washington Navy Yard, is seeking recent and relevant past performance information on potential offerors with the ability to support Execution Yard work for DDG 1000 and DDG 1001, including Post Delivery Availability (PDA), Post Shakedown Availability (PSA), and support of Mission Systems Activation (MSA).

It is requested that you complete this questionnaire and provide via email to the below listed individual no later than 17 June 2016 at 1400 hours, Eastern Standard Time, the closing time for receipt of offers.

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Attn: Richard W. Rossi, Contracting Officer 1333 Isaac Hull Ave. SE

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376 E-Mail: richard.w.rossi@navy.mil

RETURN THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

NOTE: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO ENSURE ALL PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE CLOSING DATE AND TIME IF DATE IS DIFFERENT THAN ABOVE.

If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages. Responses will be treated as source selection sensitive information. If you have any questions, please contact the Contracting Officer at the above e-mail address.

2. Contract Information. Please complete the following:

Contractor:

Contract Number:

Period of Performance:

Dollar Amount at Award:

Dollar Amount at Completion (or Current Dollar Amount, if not Completed):

Contract Type: Fixed-Price; Labor Hour or Time and Material; Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPAF, CPIF, etc.)

Describe the Products or Services:

3. Contract Relevancy. For purposes of this evaluation, the Government shall consider as relevant any work on PDAs, PSAs, CMAVs, and SRAs, on DDG, LCS, and LPD class ship availabilities performed within the three (3) years prior to RFP release.

4. Performance Assessment Values.

5 - Outstanding. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements, to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

4 - Excellent. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements, to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

3 – Good. Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

2 - Satisfactory. Performance barely meets some contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

1 - Unsatisfactory. Performance does not meet some or most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

0 - Not Applicable. Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.

5. Assessment Elements. Please select/circle the appropriate performance assessment value for each item on the questionnaire and provide supporting narrative.

a. Cost Control. Rate the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost (including reporting and analyzing variances) and ability to deliver at the agreed-to cost/price. Provide reasons for changes to the contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes).

Comments:

b. Schedule. Rate the contractor’s ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?

Comments:

c. Mission Requirements. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your mission requirements.

Comments:

d. Quality. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your required level of quality. Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards.)

Comments:

e. Subcontract Management. Rate the contractor’s ability to meet the goals of the subcontracting plan, to include the ability to timely award and manage subcontracts.

Comments:

f. Business Relations. Rate the contractor’s ability to integrate and coordinate all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness, quality of problem resolution, corrective action plans, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, and its ability to submit accurate invoices in a timely manner.

Comments:

g. Management of Key Personnel. Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing—when necessary—key personnel.

Comments:

h. Recommendation. To what extent would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts? Rate on the following scale: 5 = Yes, definitely; 4 = Yes, likely; 3 = Maybe, 2 = No, not likely; 1 = No, not ever; 0 = N/A.

Comments:

6. Other References. If you are aware of any other contract or a Point of Contact (POC) who is familiar with the contractor’s performance under this contract, please identify.

Name, Phone, and E-Mail Address:

7. Assessor Information. Please provide the following information about yourself:

Name:

Title:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Thank you for your assistance.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

PAGE

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104