TAB 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

TAB 2

Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter

1. We are offering a Request for Proposal (RFP) for DLA Strategic Materials located at Fort Belvoir, VA. The RFP is to acquire professional services to repair and maintain operating equipment in a safe and operationally ready condition for the Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials Depot located at 3200 Sheffield Avenue, Hammond, Indiana, 46327. This RFP requires that you provide past performance information. Please complete the attached Reference Contact Sheet and return via email to matthew.fox@dla.mil. DLA Strategic Materials will use the references provided in the Reference Contact Sheet to complete the questionnaire.

2. In order to ensure the questionnaire is completed in a timely manner by DLA Strategic Materials, please forward the attached, “Reference Contact Sheet” with your Quote.

3. DLA Strategic Materials’ may contact you for further information.

(WHEN COMPLETED)

CUI

PART II – QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire covers the topics that are in line with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). This questionnaire is designed to provide basic information regarding the Contractor’s present/past performance results on the contracts they have been awarded and satisfaction with their performance.

Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials will use the following guide to complete the questionnaire:

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 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 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.

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.

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).

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).

Not Applicable Definition: Did not apply to this acquisition; or, questionnaire respondent has no knowledge of, and/or did not observe, the contractor’s performance in this area. (No check box - please provide response in space provided)

(WHEN COMPLETED) CUI

Please Note: Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials will ask your references the following questions.

Reference/Company Name:

Project Name/Services Provided: Performance Period:

1. Please give a brief description of the referenced project/services above? Was the project/services completed successfully?

2. How would you rate this company’s performance?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional Please explain:

(WHEN COMPLETED) CUI

3. How organized was the vendor throughout the project/services?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional Please explain:

4. Would you recommend this company to others for other projects/services? Yes or No. Please explain:

PAST PERFORMANCE REVIEWER:

Name: Phone:

Signature: Email:

image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png