PPQ (Attachment 13).doc

N00024-16-R-3208

N6449821R4015

Attachment 13 Past Performance Questionnaire The Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) intends to issue Solicitation No. N6449821R4015 for duct cleaning and fiber lock sealing.

It is requested that you complete this questionnaire and provide via email to the listed individual before the closing time for receipt of offers: Dillon Lucas; Dillon.m.lucas@navy.mil AND Angela Cusati; angela.cusati@navy.mil Please title the subject line of the e-mail to read “N6449821R4015 – Past Performance Questionnaire” RETURN THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE REQUESTING CONTRACTOR IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

*NOTE: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO ENSURE ALL PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE CLOSING DATE AND TIME.

If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages. Responses will be treated as source selection sensitive information. If you have any questions, please contact the Contracting Officer at the above e-mail addresses.

2. Contract Information. Please complete the following:

Contractor:

Contract Number:

Period of Performance:

Dollar Amount at Award:

Dollar Amount at Completion (or Current Dollar Amount, if not Completed):

Contract Type: Fixed-Price; Labor Hour or Time and Material; Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPAF, CPIF, etc.)

Describe the Products or Services:

3. Contract Relevancy. For comparison with the size and scope of this acquisition, please provide the following information pertaining to the contract identified in Section 2 above:

Scope: Check all that apply:

______ Project Management ______ Duct Cleaning ______ Fiber Lock Sealing ______ Quality Control ______ Acquisition and Contract Management Support ______ Technical Expertise ______ Other Support (please describe: _____________________________________________)

4. Performance Assessment Values.

5 - Exceptional. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the client’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.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Client. 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.

4 – Very Good. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the client’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.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Client. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

3 - 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.

Note: 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.

2. – 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.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Client. 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).

1 - 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.

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Client. 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).

0 - Not Applicable. Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.

5. Assessment Elements. Please select/circle the appropriate performance assessment value for each item on the questionnaire and provide supporting narrative.

a. Cost Control. Rate the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost (including reporting and analyzing variances) and ability to deliver at the agreed-to cost/price. Provide reasons for changes to the contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes).

Comments:

b. Schedule. Rate the contractor’s ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?

Comments:

c. Mission Requirements. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your mission requirements.

Comments:

d. Quality. Rate the contractor’s ability to provide a product or service that met your required level of quality. Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards.)

Comments:

e. Socioeconomic Goals. Rate the contractor’s ability to meet any applicable subcontracting goals for utilization of Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HUBZone and Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI).

Comments:

f. Subcontract Management. Rate the contractor’s ability to meet the goals of the subcontracting plan, to include the ability to timely award and manage subcontracts.

Comments:

g. Business Relations. Rate the contractor’s ability to integrate and coordinate all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness, quality of problem resolution, corrective action plans, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, and its ability to submit accurate invoices in a timely manner.

Comments:

h. Management of Key Personnel. Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing—when necessary—key personnel.

Comments:

i. Recommendation. To what extent would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts? Rate on the following scale: 5 = Yes, definitely; 4 = Yes, likely; 3 = Maybe, 2 = No, not likely; 1 = No, not ever; 0 = N/A.

Comments:

6. Other References. If you are aware of any other contract or a Point of Contact (POC) who is familiar with the contractor’s performance under this contract, please identify.

Name, Phone, and E-Mail Address:

7. Assessor Information. Please provide the following information about yourself:

Name:

Title:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Thank you for your assistance.

PAGE