Attachment 3 - Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Di-N-Butyl Sebacate (DBS) - Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- N0017426R1016
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for solicitation N0017426R1016, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD), a component of the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command. The questionnaire is designed to be completed by government agencies or activities that have prior experience with offerors to evaluate their performance on previous contracts.
The questionnaire uses a six-point rating scale—Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, and Neutral—to assess contractor performance across five primary evaluation categories: Customer Satisfaction (responsiveness, personnel qualifications, and cost estimation accuracy); Timeliness (task completion within requested timeframes); Technical Success (understanding of requirements, first-time task completion, and problem resolution); Program Management (subcontractor management and cost/schedule/performance control); and Quality (reliability and quality of services). Respondents must also provide an Overall rating and submit two subjective responses regarding contractor recommendation for similar contracts and any special or unique problems experienced. Completed questionnaires must be submitted prior to the solicitation closing date to Bridget Taylor at bridget.m.taylor.civ@us.navy.mil. This template serves as an appendix to the broader solicitation for Di-N-Butyl Sebacate (DBS) procurement and does not specify products, services, pricing, or award details.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitation Amendment N0017426R10160001 SF 30.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - N0017426R1016.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Past Performance Reference.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire .docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 4 - Proposal Checklist .docx | DOCX document | |
| CDRLs A001 and A002.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Contract Administration Plan .docx | DOCX document |
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
ATTACHMENT 3
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER: N0017426R1016
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:
Bridget Taylor; e-mail address: bridget.m.taylor.civ@us.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?
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .