JS-2_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

For Official Use Only N00024-19-R-6269

1 Attachment JS-2

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Competition Sensitive

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

CONTRACTOR NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER:

EVALUATION PERIOD: DELIVERY ORDER NO.:

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE:

Name (print) Code Phone

Please read the statements below, indicating your relative level of agreement in the box provided. Past Performance Factors are defined on pages 4 and 5:

OUTSTANDING GOOD ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL UNACCEPTABLE

1. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

(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.

2. SCHEDULE:

(a) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance of the contract.

(b) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.

3. COST CONTROL:

(a) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.

(b) The Contractor submitted accurate invoices on a timely basis.

(c) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.

(d) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Unacceptable” or for any additional narratives, explanation may be provided on the attached page.

2 Attachment JS-2

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED

OUTSTANDING GOOD ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL UNACCEPTABLE

4. BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:

(a) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.

(b) 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.

(c) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.

(d) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.

(e) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.

(f) The Contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.

NOTE: For statements indicating “Unacceptable” or for any additional narratives, explanation may be provided on the attached page.

3 Attachment JS-2

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED

NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTORS:

4 Attachment JS-2

Outstanding The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the customers benefit.

The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the Offeror were, or are expected to be, highly effective.

Performance of completed contracts either was consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so.

The Offeror’s past performance records leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

Good The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the customer’s benefit.

The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the Offeror were, or are expected to be, effective.

Performance over completed contracts either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so.

The Offeror’s past performance records leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

Acceptable The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements.

The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the contractor were, or are expected to be, for the most part effective.

Performance over completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so.

The Offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

Marginal The Offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur with the period of performance.

The assessed prior performance reflected serious problem(s) for which the Offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions or for which corrections actions, implemented, or proposed to be implemented, were, or are expected to be, mostly ineffective.

Performance over completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so.

The Offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance will not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of Government management and oversight

Unacceptable

5 Attachment JS-2

The Offeror lacks a relevant past performance record or past performance information is not available or cannot be determined.

The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

To be filled in and submitted directly to the Government. Once completed, this document should be submitted to Troy McGowan (troy.mcgowan@navy.mil) and Simone Brightmon (simone.brightmon@navy.mil). This Attachment will NOT be incorporated at award. At award, this Attachment will be marked RESERVED