L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire
21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0061
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a related federal contract opportunity. The past performance questionnaire is a template for evaluating an offeror's performance on a previous contract, requesting ratings and examples to substantiate ratings in quality, cost control, and management. The federal contract opportunity is a solicitation for contractor support services for the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, Florida. Services include engineering, instructional systems, program management, and logistics to support acquisition of Navy training devices. The indefinite delivery indefinite quantity cost plus fixed fee contract provides approximately 200,000 hours annually across 26 labor categories for one base year and four option years. Responses are due in late March 2019 for an estimated award in July 2019. The opportunity is set aside for woman owned small businesses.
L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire
Text of this file
26 August 2019
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
I. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE DATA (To be completed by the Offeror) Offeror Name:
Offeror Role in Past Performance Contract:
Contract Title:
Contract Number/Task Order:
Contract Type:
Procuring Agency:
Description of Product or Service:
Period of Performance:
Dollar Value of Contract:
Current Dollar Value of Effort:
Administrative Place of Contract:
Cage Code:
DUNS:
Customer:
Contracting Agency:
II. POINT OF CONTACT (POC) Data (To be completed by the Offeror) Name:
Position or role:
Agency:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Other:
III. INFORMATION TO THE PPQ POC
Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection. Please complete the assessment below and send all pages of this questionnaire to: Jason.j.jackson@navy.mil by September 27, 2019.
Assessment: (To be completed by the PPQ POC) Instructions to complete the assessment: Please provide responses to 1 through 3 that are listed below the assessment Rating System Table. Place an “X” in the rating that best assesses the offeror’s performance in the areas listed below. Then provide examples to substantiate your rating based on the ratings in the Rating System Table. For example, if you provide a rating of ‘Exceptional’, list the “many” contractual requirements that were exceeded “to the government’s benefit”.
Rating System Table:
A common five level assessment rating system is used to evaluate a contractor's performance. Ratings range from Unsatisfactory to Exceptional. Here's a breakdown of each category:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The 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 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. |
1. Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to execute what he promised in the proposal, I WOULD or WOULD NOT award to this offeror today given that I had a choice.
2. Quality of Product or Service:
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
List the positive and negative examples that substantiate rating IAW the ratings from the Ratings System Table above:
3. Cost Control:
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
List the positive and negative examples that substantiate rating IAW the ratings from the Ratings System Table above:
4. Management:
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
N/A
List the positive and negative examples that substantiate rating IAW the ratings from the Ratings System Table above:
Signature ______________________________ Date _____________ Electronic signatures are acceptable. An e-mail from the originator of this document will suffice. Signatures (electronic or hand written) verify that the signatory completed this form and agrees with the information.
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Other files
Show all 37
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .