EXHIBIT_C_Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 1 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N4008422R0085
About this file
This solicitation is for multiple award service contracts to provide environmental compliance services to Navy and other Department of Defense installations in Japan. The contracts will have a not-to-exceed amount of $25 million combined and will be used to issue task orders ranging in value from 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 Japanese yen. Services may include air source inventories and management plans, drinking water and wastewater studies and plans, hazardous and solid waste management, pesticide and cultural/natural resources plans, polychlorinated biphenyl and asbestos inventories, spill prevention and response plans, underground storage tank assessments, and environmental laboratory services. One seed project task order for an illicit discharge survey and stormwater pollution prevention plan update will be awarded concurrently with the basic contracts. The response date for proposals is February 22, 2022 at 1400 Japan Standard Time. Minimum annual guarantees of 300,000 yen will be provided to awardees not receiving the seed project.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N4008422R0085 AMD 0001.pdf | ||
| N4008422R0085 AMD 0002.pdf | ||
| Attach_8_Pre-Bid_Inquiry_Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| EXHIBIT_B_Environmental Experience Project Data Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| EXHIBIT_A_Safety Narrative.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_1_JC.1 _Reference Documents.pdf | ||
| EXHIBIT_E_ Representations and Certifications.docx | DOCX document | |
| N4008422R0085 RFP SF33.pdf | ||
| Attach_6_CUI_OPSEC_Guide.pdf | ||
| Attach_5_PIEE_Solicitation_Module.pdf | ||
| EXHIBIT_D_Price Proposal Form for Seed Project.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 11
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
CUI // FEDCON [When filled in] Source Selection Information--See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 [When filled in]
| Solicitation Title: Environmental Compliance Services | N40084-22-R-0085 |
| Location: Various Locations DoD Facilities In Japan | Source Selection Plan |
EXHIBIT C – N4008422R0085
1. The NAVFAC Form PPQ shall be utilized for all evaluations that require a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).
2. Solicitations utilizing PPQs shall include the language cited below in the RFP. The current NAVFAC Form PPQ-0 is available in BMS S-17.2.15 Source Selection.
“Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor (insert applicable factor number, usually Factor 1, and insert factor title, usually Corporate Experience). AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.
CUI // FEDCON [When filled in] Source Selection Information--See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 [When filled in]
| Solicitation Title: Environmental Compliance Services | N40084-22-R-0085 |
| Location: Various Locations DoD Facilities In Japan | Source Selection Plan |
IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment ___), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, __________________, via email at ________________________ prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.”
Rev. Jan 2018 1
EXHIBIT C
NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
| 1. Contractor Information | |
| Firm Name: | CAGE Code: |
| Address: | Entity Identifier Number: |
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:
2. Work Performed as: |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub Contractor |_| Joint Venture |_| Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: |_| Firm Fixed Price |_| Cost Reimbursement |_| Other (Please specify):
Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):
Explain Differences:
4. Project Description:
Complexity of Work |_| High |_| Med |_| Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)
5. Client Information Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
6. Describe the client’s role in the project:
7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
8. Client’s Signature:
NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT
YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
仕事が契約内容と合致しており、顧客の希 望を上回る点が多い。修正可能な範囲の軽 微な不具合を含め、契約通りの内容である。 修正箇所は非常に満足な結果である。
An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
仕事が契約内容と合致しており、顧客の希望を多少上回る。修正可能な範囲の若干の不具合を含め、契約通りの内容である。修正箇所は満足な結果である。
A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
仕事が最低限の契約内容と合致している。修正可能な若干の不具合を含め、契約通りの内容である。修正箇所は特に問題ない結果である。
A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
仕事が契約内容と合致していない。修正可能な不具合があるかどうかも把握できておらず、深刻な状態である。業者から提案される方法は効果的とは言えない、またはその方法を実行されてもいない。 A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
仕事が契約内容にほとんど合致しておらず、不具合の復旧も迅速ではない。不具合の修正も全く効果的ではなく、深刻な状態である。 An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
評価材料がない、または該当せず。 Rating will be neither positive nor negative.
Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________
Rev. Jan 2018 7 image3.png image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .