Atch_(L-3)_Past_Performance_Questionaire(PPQ).docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY20 RRL CC Final RFP Posting
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0022
About this file
Att L-3
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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 L-3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)
From: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), Contracts Department 12211 Science Drive, Orlando, FL 32826
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
(for contracts with no CPARS or with CPARS older than 12 months prior to RFP release date – Section L Part B 1.1.h)
| FOR SOLICITATION: |
| N6134019R0022 |
Submit completed past performance questionnaire package (see Section L) to: Austin Brookshire
| Email to: |
| austin.brookshire@navy.mil |
(1) Name of Contractor questionnaire is being completed for:
(2) Contract Number:
(3) Role Contractor played in Prior Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(4) Proposed Role in Pending Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(5) Length of time your agency/firm has been involved with the Offeror:
(6) Contract type (FFP, Cost; Product delivery or Service?):
| (7) Contract values for contractor identified in Block (1): |
| a. Overall contract value (identify prime contractor): |
b. Value awarded to Contractor for Interactive Courseware:
c. Amount Invoiced to date by Contractor:
(8) Brief description of contract product or service scope:
(9) Is Performance by Contractor, Block (1), on this contract being reported in CPARS
No, complete page 2 of questionnaire
Yes, answer question (i) below
(i) Has the scope of work significantly changed since the last CPAR?
No
Yes, provide details in (iv) below
(ii) Have there been any significant changes in contractor performance between the last CPAR and now?
No
Yes, answer question (iii) below
(iii) Has an out-of-cycle CPAR been initiated to document changes in performance?
No, provide details of changes in (iv) below
Yes
(iv) Comments to support answers to questions (i), (ii) and (iii):
(10) Name of agency/company completing questionnaire:
(11) Name of person completing questionnaire:
(12) Email address of person completing questionnaire:
(13) Title of person completing questionnaire:
(14) Phone number of person completing questionnaire:
(15) Date questionnaire is being completed:
RATING SCALE: Please use the following ratings to answer the questions on page 2.
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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 were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Neutral |
| No record exists. |
| N/A |
| (Not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation |
NOTE: For statements indicating less than “Satisfactory”, please provide a brief explanation in the comments section of the survey.
| CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY |
| N/A |
| Neutral |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
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.) SCHEDULE:
(1) The tasks required under this effort were performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the period of performance or delivery date of the contract.
c.) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT
(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.
COMMENTS (Please provide comments to support the ratings you provided above:
a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:
b.) SCHEDULE:
c.) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Source Selection Information. See FAR 3.104.
File details come from the government source that posted it.