SE4 - Attachment 9 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SPAWAR ASHORE GLOBAL C4ISR INSTALLATIONS CONTRACT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00039-18-R-0060
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a contractor bidding on Solicitation Number N00039-18-R-0060 for the SPAWAR Ashore Global C4ISR Installations Contract. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command is requesting a past performance evaluation of the contractor for quality of product or service, cost control, schedule, management, and customer satisfaction on a previous contract. Respondents are asked to evaluate the contractor in these areas on a scale of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Explanations are requested for any exceptional or unsatisfactory ratings. The completed questionnaire should be returned within ten working days to the contracting officer via email.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 41
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
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Chris Thompson, Code 2.1A7
SPAWAR CONTRACTS, 4301 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110-3127
TO: AGENCY:
FAX: EMAIL:_________________________
INFORMATION REQUEST
PAST PERFORMANCE
This office is currently in the process of awarding a competitive service contract. [CONTRACTOR NAME] has provided your name and organization as a reference regarding [CONTRACTOR’S NAME] record of past performance under Contract No. [CONTRACT NO.]. Specifically, we are looking for past performance information regarding the following areas:
a.) Quality of Product or Service - Conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship, accuracy of reports, appropriateness of personnel, and technical excellence;
b.) Cost Control - Within budget, current accurate and complete billings, actual cost/rates reflect closely to negotiated cost/rates, cost efficiency measures, adequate budgetary internal controls;
c.) Schedule - Timeliness of performance, met interim milestones, reliable, responsive to technical and contractual direction, completed on time, including wrap-up and contract administration, no liquidated damages assessed;
d.) Management - Effective management, businesslike correspondence, responsive to contract requirements, prompt notification of problems, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, proactive, effective Contractor recommended solutions, timely award and management of subcontracts, effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program;
e.) Customer Satisfaction - Satisfaction of end users with the Contractor’s service;
In order for our team to compile its evaluation, we request that you complete the attached survey form and email it, and any other pertinent information, within ten (10) working days to chris.thompson1@navy.mil. Any relevant information you have would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor.
| Chris Thompson |
| Contracting Officer |
ATTACHMENT 9 –
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
N00039-18-R-0060
| Competition Sensitive |
| [DATE] |
| For Official Use Only |
| Page 1 of 4 |
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. Please refer to the last page for definitions of “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, and “Not Satisfactory”.
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR 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.
NOTE: For statements indicating “Exceptional” or “Not Satisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation on the attached page.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED
CONTRACTOR NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER:
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
d.) MANAGEMENT:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.
(2) 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.
(3) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(4) The Contractor promptly notified the Contracting Officer’s Representative, Technical Point of Contact, 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.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The products/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 Technical Point of Contact.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
NOTE: For statements indicating “Exceptional” or “Unsatisfactory,” please provide a brief explanation on the attached page.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED
CONTRACTOR NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER:
Past Performance shall be evaluated based on the adjectival ratings described below:
EXCEPTIONAL: Outstanding in all respects, representing the best that could be expected from any contractor.
VERY GOOD: There are few problem areas reported; however, they are not of such magnitude or duration to pose significant risk to the Government. The contractor resolved problem areas quickly and to the satisfaction of the customer.
SATISFACTORY: Some problem areas have been reported and/or the resolution of problem areas, was, in some cases, prolonged.
MARGINAL: The contractor’s past performance did not meet some contractual requirements and resulted in some serious problems, which were not resolved satisfactorily.
UNSATISFACTORY: The contractor’s past performance did not meet most contractual requirements.
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
image1.wmf oleObject1.bin
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .