MCoE_DRAFT_RFP_Attachment 14_Past_Performance_Questonary.doc
DOC document 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE)
- Solicitation number
- W9124711R0002
About this file
MCoE DRAFT RFP Attachment 14 (Past Performance Questionnaire )
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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
FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF
TRAINING, DOCTRINE, CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS,
INSTRUCTION, ROLE PLAYERS AND SUPPORT SERVICES
AT FORT KNOX KY, AND FORT BENNING GA
MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
The offeror shall include documentation regarding their recent and relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The past performance data shall document a successful history of recent relevant experience and past contract performance. To illustrate the offeror’s past performance, the following documentation shall be submitted.
The offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. Contractor is limited to five (5) past performance questionnaires.
The questionnaires shall be returned directly to the addresses below. If the contractor chooses to use e-mail delivery format, please ensure to follow the e-mail Subject line, to line, and Cc line.
**Improper e-mail submissions will not be reviewed and evaluated.
Regular Mail:
MCoE Solicitation W91247-11-R-0002, Past Performance Questionnaire, Company – Suite (One or Two) Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Center – Fort Bragg
ATTN: CCMI-RCB (Mr. Christian Freire)
2175 Reilly Road, Stop A
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
Via UPS or FedEx:
MCoE Solicitation W91247-11-R-0002, Past Performance Questionnaire, Company – Suite (One or Two) Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Center – Fort Bragg
ATTN: CCMI-RCB (Mr. Christian Freire)
Bldg 2-1105 C Stack Macomb Street
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
Via Electronic mail:
Subject:
MCoE Solicitation W91247-11-R-0002, Past Performance Questionnaire, Company – Suite (One or Two)
To: Christian.freireacosta@us.army.mil Cc: Gail.Williams4@us.army.mil Past Performance Questionnaire
FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF
TRAINING, DOCTRINE, CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS,
INSTRUCTION, ROLE PLAYERS AND SUPPORT SERVICES
AT FORT KNOX KY, AND FORT BENNING GA
MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
Suite:
FORMCHECKBOX
One
FORMCHECKBOX
Two
FORMCHECKBOX
Both
Contractor Name: ____________________________________________________________________ Total Contract Value: _________________________________________________________________ Contract Award Date: ________________________________________________________________ Contract Completion Date: _____________________________________________________________ Respondent Point of Contact: ___________________________________________________________ Respondent Address: __________________________________________________________________ Respondent Phone Number and e-mail: ___________________________________________________ Contractor performed as:
PRIME Contractor
FORMCHECKBOX
SUB Contractor
FORMCHECKBOX
Description of Requirements (tasks, volume, scope, complexity):
Rating Scale:
Please rate (the contractor) as described below. If you are unable to rate an item because it was not a requirement, never an issue, or you have no knowledge of the item in question, then you should mark “N/A”. Please add any comments you may have in the space provided after every question.
Evaluation Criteria:
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| NO CONFIDENCE (NC) |
| LITTLE CONFIDENCE |
(LC)
SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE
(SAC)
SIGNIFICANT
CONFIDENCE
(SIC)
HIGH CONFIDENCE
(HC)
UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE
(UC)
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective. |
| Performance met contractual requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. There were a few minor problems, which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner. |
| Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner. |
| No record of past performance or the record is inconclusive. |
| The contractor: |
| NC |
| LC |
| SAC |
| SIC |
| HC |
| UC |
| 1. |
| Provide experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirement. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 2. |
| Demonstrated ability to hire, maintain, and replace, if necessary, qualified personnel during the contract period. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 3. |
| Delegated authority to project managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 4. |
| Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 5. |
| Complied with all federal, state and local laws and regulations to include appropriate licensing. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 6. |
| Provided adequate oversight of teaming partners/subcontractors |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 7. |
| Identified problems as they occurred. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 8. |
| Suggested alternative approaches to problems. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 9. |
| Displayed initiative to solve problems. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 10. |
| Corrected deficiencies in timely manner |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 11. |
| Developed realistic schedules. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 12. |
| Met established project schedules |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 13. |
| Was responsive to contract changes. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 14. |
| Provided adequate project supervision. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 15. |
| Cooperated with Government personnel after award. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 16. |
| How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 17. |
| Contractor met subcontracting goals |
| YES |
| NO |
| 18. |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “remarks.” |
| YES |
| NO |
| 19. |
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “remarks.” |
| YES |
| NO |
| 20. |
| Is this contract rated in CPARS? |
| YES |
| NO |
Remarks:_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
SIGNED ___________________________________ DATE ________________
[Type text]
Attachment 14, Past Performance Questionnaire
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .