PastPerformanceQuestionnaire 08R0056.doc

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE COVER SHEET

FOR SOLICITATION N00421-08-R-0056

Name of offeror questionnaire is being completed for: _________________________________

Name of company completing questionnaire: ________________________________________

Contract Number: ______________________________________________________________

Name, title and phone number of person completing questionnaire: _______________________

Length of time your firm has been involved with the offeror: ____________________________

SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE COVER SHEET AND QUESTIONNAIRE BY PROPOSAL DUE DATE TO:

Monique J. Johnson BY FACIMILE AT (301) 995-0312 OR EMAIL TO: monique.johnson@navy.mil

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET

SOLICITATION NUMBER: N00421-08-R-0056

RATING SCALE

Please use the following ratings to answer the questions. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “NA”.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Neutral - The offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance based on the offeror’s past performance record.

A – The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, highly effective. Performance of completed contracts either was consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

B - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance over completed contracts either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

C - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the contractor were, or are expected to be, for the most part effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

D - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet some contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance reflected some serious problems, for which the contractor either failed to, identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be implemented were, or are expected to be, only partially effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of mediocre quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance might be difficult to achieve or that it can occur only with increased levels of Government management and oversight.

F - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur with the period of performance. The assessed prior performance reflected serious problem(s) for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions or for which corrective actions, implemented, or proposed to be implemented, were, or are expected to be, mostly ineffective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance will not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of Government management and oversight.

NOTE:

For statements indicating “Poor”, please provide a brief explanation in the comments section of the survey.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

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.

d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:

(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective management over the effort performed.

(2) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) 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 COR, TPOC, 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 TPOC.

(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.

COMMENTS:

Attachment (3)