Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc

DOC document 77 KB Posted

Attached to
MK 85 Motor Tubes (Aluminum Alloy)
Solicitation number
N00174-20-R-0151
Issued by

About this file

This past performance questionnaire relates to solicitation number N00174-19-R-0151 for unspecified services. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division is seeking performance information on an offeror for an existing or past contract to assist in evaluating proposals for quality of performance, timeliness, technical success, program management, and overall performance. Respondents are asked to rate performance on a scale from exceptional to unsatisfactory and to recommend whether the offeror should be considered for similar future contracts.

The related solicitation N00174-20-R-0151 is for MK 85 Motor Tubes (Aluminum Alloy) to be provided to the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command. Interested offerors must comply with all requirements specified in the solicitation to be considered for award.

View the file

Other files

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER: N00174-19-R-0151

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)

4072 North Jackson Road

Suite 132, Code 022TS Indian Head, MD 20640-5115

Attention: Tracy R. Scott

Email: Tracy.R.Scott@navy.mil

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.

Exceptional
vERY gOOD
sATISFACTORY
mARGINAL
uNSATISFACTORY

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?

PAGE

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .