Attachment_9.docx

DOCX document 24 KB Posted

Attached to
Cryogenic Services CONUS (Seven sites)
Solicitation number
N0024419Q0184
Issued by

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Attachment_11_ABO_Guide.pdf PDF
Attachment_10_Q_and_A_1.pdf PDF
RFQ_Amendmenty_N00244-19-Q-0184-0001.pdf PDF
Attachment_6_Revised.pdf PDF
N00244-19-Q-0184.pdf PDF
Attachments_1_through_7.pdf PDF
2.04_Attachment_8.pdf PDF

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

OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

Solicitation N00024-16-R-3101

Complete and return no later than the solicitation closing date to:

NAVSUP FLC San Diego Attn: Jose L. Gomez, Code 240 Phone: (619) 556-5905 Email: jose.l.gomez1@navy.mil

On behalf of:

Company's Name:_________________________________
POC/Title/Position:_________________________________
Email Address:_________________________________
Contract/Purchase Order No.:_________________________________
Contract Amount:_________________________________
Contract Type:_________________________________
Period of Performance:_________________________________
Business Address:_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Phone Number:_________________________________
Description of Effort:_________________________________
Phone Number:_________________________________
Phone Number:_________________________________

NOTE: DO NOT RETURN TO THE CONTRACTOR WHO ORIGINATED THIS REQUEST

The completion of this questionnaire is requested from your agency/company in order for the NAVSUP FLC San Diego to evaluate the aforementioned contractor’s past performance on previous contracts and efforts as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by the Government, relative to the award of a contract.

Completed by :

Command/Company’s Name:_________________________________
POC/Title/Position:_________________________________
Email Address:_________________________________
Address:_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Phone Number:_________________________________

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATING TABLE

Quality:

1. Quality/Meeting Contract Requirements: The offeror’s demonstrated history of delivering products and services that met or exceeded the requirements of the contract.

a. How would you describe your level of customer satisfaction?

b. Were there instances of rework and/or deficiency reports? (If yes, explain)

c. Did the contractor engage in effective and/or innovative work applications that were beneficial to the Government?

2. Quality/Timeliness.

a. Did the Contractor meet/comply with performance schedules?

b. Rate the timeliness of submission of requested information, reports and invoicing.

3. Quality/Contractor Responsiveness. The offeror’s demonstrated ability to:

a. respond to customer concerns

b. isolate and resolve problems

· the number and severity of problems

· the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

c. Contractor's cost control. Did the contractor deliver at the agreed-to price/cost? Describe the reasons for changes to contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/under-run, Government-imposed schedule changes, etc.)

4. Additional Observations/Information

a. Identify the contractor's overall strengths and weaknesses.

b. Given hindsight, are you satisfied that the contract was awarded to this contractor? Would you be pleased to have this contractor perform work for you again? Why?

c. Are you aware of any other contracted efforts performed by this contractor similar in nature to this contract? Please identify contract/program and point of contact.

d. Is there anyone else we should send this questionnaire to? Please identify by name, organization, and phone number.

(If more comment space needed, please attach additional pages.)

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

File details come from the government source that posted it.