Past Performance Questionnaire for RFQ 70Z02322Q79100003.docx
DOCX document 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cybersecurity Learning Platform
- Solicitation number
- 70Z02322Q79100003
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a related federal contract opportunity. The United States Coast Guard is seeking to award an indefinite delivery contract for licenses to an online cybersecurity learning platform and boot camp training seats. The platform must be compliant with DoD directives on information assurance and cyberspace workforce management. Interested vendors must submit responses to the request for quote by July 27, 2022. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by references and addresses criteria such as quality, schedule, management, and customer satisfaction on a rating scale to assist the contracting officer's evaluation.
View the file
Other files
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
Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation Number: 70Z02322R73100001
Offeror Being Evaluated
Entity Completing Questionnaire
Contract Number
Delivery Order/Task Order Number
Evaluator Point of Contact
Length of Involvement with Offeror/ Period of Performance
Deliverable / Service Description
EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a requirement to provide licenses to CG personnel for an online tool and seats for boot camp training to prepare members of the Cyberspace workforce to pass industry certification exams, to meet mandated continuing education requirements, and for professional development. This questionnaire will be used by the Contract Specialist to obtain past performance information from a reference listed in the Vendor’s quote.
Please provide your assessment of the company’s level of past performance on the contract for which you are a reference. Mark the appropriate block, indicating the rating using the following rating guidelines. Space is provided for comments. Please be sure to support your ratings with narrative and demonstrates how this performance benefited your organization.
Submit completed Cover Sheet and Questionnaire by the proposal’s due date via e-mail:
ATTN: Robert Budlong Email: Robert.Budlong@uscg.mil *Include the solicitation number 70Z02322Q79100003 within the subject of the email.
Evaluation Ratings Definitions
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. 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. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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 was effective.
To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
| 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. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal |
| 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. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
1. Quality
Overall Rating:
Unsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
Very good
Exceptional
Comments for Quality:
2. Schedule
Unsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
Very good
Exceptional
Comments for Schedule:
3. Management
Unsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
Very good
Exceptional
Comments for Management:
4. Customer Satisfaction
Would you be willing to work with this firm again?
definitely would not probably would not neutral probably would definitely would
Comments for Customer Satisfaction:
For Official Use Only
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .