PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.pdf
PDF 93 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GPS Satellite Simulator Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017420R0002
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for solicitation number N00174-20-R-0002. The prospective contractor shall manufacture and deliver to NSWC-IHEODTD a fully functional GPS Satellite Simulator or equivalent consisting of a controller with SimGEN operating software and a signal generator with 16 channels of GPS L1 and 16 channels of GPS L2 signals. The simulator shall be backward compatible with legacy GPS simulation capabilities and provide M-Code capability. The agency is the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command. The questionnaire requests ratings on a scale for customer satisfaction, timeliness, technical success, program management, quality, and an overall rating. It also asks if the agency would recommend the contractor for similar contracts and about any unique problems experienced with the contractor.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 02 to RFP # N00174-20-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Amendment 01 to RFP # N00174-20-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Form 16 QUALITY ASSURANCE Signed.pdf | ||
| PastPerformanceMatrix.pdf | ||
| RFP N00174-20-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Satellite Simulator - Salient Characteristics.pdf |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER N00174-20-R-0002
Offeror’s Name:
Name of agency/activity completing questionnaire:
Name and title of the person completing questionnaire:
Contract Number/Period of Performance: _____________________________________________________
Length of time your agency/activity has been involved with the Offeror:
Brief description of the services provided by the Offeror:
SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE
SOLICITATION TO:
Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (NSWC IHEODTD) 4081 North Jackson Road Suite 106, Code 022TS Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 e-mail address: willy.quiambao@navy.mil or FAX: 301-744-6664
RATING SCALE
Please use the following ratings to answer the questions.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Offeror were highly effective.
Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’s benefit. The 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 element being assessed 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 element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem (s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
NEUTRAL - 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.
E X
C E
P T
IO
N
A L
V E
R Y
G O
O D
S
T
IS
F A
C T
O R
Y
M
R G
IN
L
U N
S A
T
IS
F A
C T
O R
Y
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The referenced contractor was responsive to the customer’s needs.
The contractor’s personnel were qualified to meet the requirements.
The contractor’s ability to accurately estimate cost.
TIMELINESS
The contractor’s ability to ensure, to the extent of its responsibility, that all tasks were completed within the requested time frame.
TECHNICAL SUCCESS
The contractor had a clear understanding of the tasks detailed in the SOW and/or delivery orders.
The contractor’s ability to complete tasks correctly the first time.
The contractor’s ability to resolve problems.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Did the contractor successfully manage its subcontractors?
Was the contractor’s management effective in controlling cost, schedule and performance requirements?
QUALITY
The contractor’s quality and reliability of services delivered.
OVERALL
Please assign an overall rating for the contractor’s work performed.
PLEASE PROVIDE SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. Would you recommend this contractor for similar contracts? Please explain:
2. Have you experienced special or unique problems with the referenced contractor that the Government should be aware of in making our decision?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .