Past Perform JPL Form 0358-A14.docx
DOCX document 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CZ-2664-06012025
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Form from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for a Mechanical Engineering Support and Assistance (MESA) Request for Proposal (RFP). The form requires potential contractors to provide detailed information about their five most recent contracts similar to the proposed effort, including contract details, performance metrics, and customer references. JPL will use this past performance information to evaluate contractor capability, with ratings ranging from Unsatisfactory (1) to Exceptional (5) across categories such as technical performance, schedule, cost management, and responsiveness to requirement changes.
The related federal contract opportunity is a 100% small business set-aside solicitation for mechanical systems engineering tasks supporting non-flight and flight technology development, system engineering, hardware development, and integration and test activities. JPL intends to award multiple subcontracts using Cost Type and Fixed Price structures, with individual task efforts directed through Subcontract Work Orders (SWOs). The procurement falls under NAICS code 541715 for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences, and is being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology
Past Performance (RFP/ITB Attachment A-14)
Return this form in a Microsoft Word compatible format Introduction
1. This Attachment sets forth the requirements to be followed in preparing information on your Past Performance. The information provided will be used to help determine responsibility and must be provided in writing by the date indicated in the RFP.
· Please provide the Past Performance Volume of your proposal in the same number of copies as your Cost Proposal, unless otherwise indicated by JPL in the RFP Cover Letter.
· If the Technical/Management part of your proposal is to be presented via an Oral Presentation, then the written Past Performance Volume of your proposal is due by the date indicated on the RFP Title Sheet.
· JPL may contact and verify the references you provide in your proposal to assess Past Performance.
Requirement
| 2. | Provide Preliminary Information (in the table on page 2 of this form) of the five most recent contracts performed by your organization which are similar to the effort described in this RFP. Do not input data in the Contractor Performance Information table. |
| 3. | If this RFP contains an evaluation criterion or factor entitled “related experience,” please include Preliminary Information of ALL the efforts you listed in response to that criterion or factor. |
4. JPL will forward the following to your customer to evaluate past performance:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Date:
Customer’s Name
Address
| Attention: |
| Subject: |
| Past Performance Questionnaire |
| Reference |
| (a) |
| JPL RFP No.: |
RFP Title:
| (b) |
| Past Performance Information Submitted by |
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is currently evaluating a proposal submitted by Reference (b) Proposer to the Reference (a) JPL RFP. Under the Past Performance section of the proposal, the Proposer submitted the information below to help JPL evaluate past performance. Please verify that the information provided in Preliminary Information table is correct and complete the Contractor Performance Information table on page 2
Preliminary Information
Customer Name/Address:
Contract No.:
Contract Type:
Description of Effort:
Period of Performance:
Task or Support Type:
Average No. of Personnel Assigned to Effort:
Initial Cost/Price:
Current/Final Cost/Price:
Overrun (if any, explain):
Your customer’s contact information
· Telephone Nos.:
· Emails:
· Titles:
Contractor Performance Information
Use the Definitions of Ratings table appended at the end of this form to indicate a rating for each of the performance areas below.
Contractor Performance Ratings
E = Exceptional; VG = Very Good; S = Satisfactory M = Marginal; U = Unsatisfactory
| Performance |
| Please Provide Examples/Comments |
| Area |
| Rating |
Technical
Schedule
Cost
(If costs overran, describe the degree to which it was the contractor’s responsibility.)
Management of contract
Management of Any Lower-Tier Subcontracts
Commitment to Contract/ Program
Responsive-ness to Requirement Changes
If you were to consider this contractor for another effort, what area(s) would you probe further?
Please send your response by email to the undersigned.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this request.
Sincerely, Subcontracts Manager Phone: (818) Email:
Request for Proposal (RFP) Past Performance Adjective Rating Method
Definition of Ratings
| ADJECTIVE | |
| SCORE | |
| COMMENTS |
| Exceptional |
| 5 |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to Customer's* benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| 4 |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to Customer's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| 3 |
| 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 to be or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| 2 |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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 |
| 1 |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
* Customer = Organization that awarded the contract.
This document has been reviewed and determined not to contain export controlled technical data.
JPL 0358-A14 Rev 9/22 image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .