Attachment_4_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 25 KB Posted

Attached to
DLA Distribution Transportation Contract Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
SP330018Q5013
Issued by
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution

About this file

Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

SP3300-18-Q-5013

Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire

ATTACHMENT D – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

REQUEST FOR QUOTE: SP3300-18-Q-5013

This RFQ is being issued to establish more than one Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract(s) for transportation support capability that would serve as the primary conduit for cargo. The contract(s) will provide commercial capability to provide transportation services to deliver Class II (Individual Equipment), Class II (P) (Packaged Petroleum Oils and Lubricants), Class IV (Construction), and Class IX (Repair Parts) material from DLA Distribution Center Bahrain to customers in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Oman, and United Arab Emirates (UAE).

PART I (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. RELEVANT PREVIOUS CONTRACT -- IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Contract Place of Performance (Address):

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if this was a subcontract effort):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Method of Acquisition (competitive or noncompetitive) Nature of Award (initial or follow-on) Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

Awarded Contract Price/Cost:

Final Contract Price/Cost:

B. OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT FOR RESPONDENT QUESTIONS

Name:

Title:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

E-mail Address:

C. DATE SENT TO RESPONDENT: ________________

PART II – EVALUATION (To be completed by Respondent)

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

IAW FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ___________________________________________________________

B. Contract number: ______________________

C. Contract type: ______________________________

D. Period of performance: ___________________

E. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

F. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

G. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

H. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name and title: ________________________________________________________________________

B. Evaluator's phone/fax number: _________________________________________________________

C. Number of years the evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Questionnaire Instructions The questionnaire covers the topics that are in line with the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARs). This questionnaire is designed to provide basic information regarding the Contractor’s past performance results on the contracts they have been awarded and your satisfaction with their performance. The format of the questionnaire follows a five-point scale with five (5) being Exceptional and one (1) being Unsatisfactory.

RATERS PLEASE NOTE:

Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a lower than Satisfactory rating solely for not performing beyond the requirement of the contract.

Please use the following guide in preparing your response to the below questions:

Dark Blue/Exceptional Definition: 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.

NOTE: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a 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.

Purple/Very Good Definition: 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 was effective.

NOTE: 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.

Green/Satisfactory Definition: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Yellow/Marginal Definition: 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.

NOTE: 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).

Red/Unsatisfactory Definition: 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 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).

How would you rate this contractor past performance using the following adjectival scale, please ensure that you use the definitions above when assigning a numerical rating. In addition, please provide a justification for rating given if above or below satisfactory. Please CIRCLE your response below each question based on the following scale:

Dark Blue
Purple
Green
Yellow
Red
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

Justification for Rating:

DELIVERY OR SCHEDULE:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

ABILITY TO MEET PRIORITY TIMELINES:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

COST CONTROL:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

BUSINESS RELATIONS:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS: (ONLY APPLICABLE TO LARGE BUSINESS CONTRACTORS)

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

ANY ADDITIONAL PERTINENT INFORMATION, i.e., SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, MAINTENANCE OF GFE, etc.:

Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory

Please provide a brief description of the services/supplies provided under the contract administered by your organization:

Given what you know today, would you recommend award of this contractor?

YES
NO

How would you rate this contractor’s past performance using the following number scale? In addition, please provide a justification for rating given if above or below mostly. Please CIRCLE your response below each question based on the following scale:

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Meets Most Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs) and/or Contract Quality Standards

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Justification:

Responds to Complaints in a Timely Manner

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Disputes the Scope of the Requirement

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Submits Reasonable Price Proposals on Contract Changes

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Has Problems with Payroll, Paying for Supplies, or Subcontractors

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Difficult When Negotiating Changes

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Pro-actively Anticipates, Avoids or Mitigates Problems

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Billing is Timely, Accurate and Complete

Always
Almost Always
Mostly
Seldom
Never

Please provide any additional information regarding this contractor’s performance, if applicable:

PART III – RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire to the Procuring Contracting Officer via e-mail (Jada.Weaver@dla.mil) and the Contract Specialist, via e-mail (Daniel.Lentz@dla.mil) by the proposal due date specified.

DATE OF COMPLETION & SUBMISSION: _____________________

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

(ONCE COMPLETED)

File details come from the government source that posted it.