05a-FY25 MAPC PPQ.pdf
PDF 474 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY25 Multiple Award Paving Contract (MAPC) - Recompete Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA440725R0001
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the Scott Air Force Base Fiscal Year 25 Multiple Award Paving Contract (MAPC) program. The questionnaire is designed to collect detailed performance feedback from previous clients about potential contractors. It covers comprehensive evaluation areas including technical performance, program management, transition/phase-in capabilities, employee retention, small business participation, and cost performance. The document provides a structured rating system ranging from Exceptional (E) to Unsatisfactory (U) with space for supporting commentary, allowing respondents to provide nuanced assessments of a contractor's past performance across multiple dimensions.
The solicitation is a total small business set-aside seeking approximately eight contract awards for general paving and infrastructure construction at Scott Air Force Base. The contract will cover specialty construction activities such as operational airfield work, site preparation, excavation, grading, demolition, and septic/fuel tank installation and removal. The performance period includes a two-year base period with three additional two-year option periods. The minimum guarantee per awardee is $500, with individual seed projects ranging between $250,000 and $500,000. The total aggregate ceiling value is $45,000,000, and respondents are requested to complete and return the questionnaire by 2 June 2025 to support the source selection process.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
Controlled Unclassified Information Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.
Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire FA440725R0001
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 1 of 9
The 375th Contracting Squadron of the Air Force Air Mobility Command is in the process of competitively selecting sources for the Scott Air Force Base Fiscal Year 25 Multiple Award Paving Contract program. This program will allow for general paving and infrastructure construction at Scott Air Force Base to include specialty construction in areas such as operational airfield, site preparation activities such as excavating and grading, demolition of building and other structures, and septic system and fuel tank installation and removal. The effort will streamline the contracting processes and procedure to enable the contracting squadron to effectively and efficiently award task orders and complete projects.
One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offerors' past performance on contracts or other work efforts which reflect the offeror's ability to perform on the proposed effort. We depend on information received from organizations such as yours, which have had first-hand experience with the offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts or work efforts.
Our areas of interest regarding the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. In order to meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than 2 June 2025. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of negotiations.
To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and e-mailed to regina.brand@us.af.mil and jody.noram.1@us.af.mil. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official Source Selection records.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this Source Selection.
Signature
JODY NORAM
Procuring Contracting Officer
1 Atch Past Performance Questionnaire http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:regina.brand@us.af.mil mailto:jody.noram.1@us.af.mil
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 2 of 9
Section 1: Contract Identification
A. Contractor (Company/Division):
B. Contractor Cage Code:
C. Contract Number:
D. Contract Type (e.g., FFP, FPIF, CPIF, CPFF, etc.):
E. Program Title:
F. Brief Program Description:
G. Program Phase (e.g., Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)):
H. Period of Performance
1. Original Schedule (assuming all options exercised):
Beginning Date _________ through ____________
2. Current Schedule (assuming all options exercised):
Beginning Date _________ through ____________
3. Reason for difference (if applicable):
I. Contract Dollar Value
1. Original maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $
2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $
3. Reasons for difference between original and current contract dollar value (if applicable):
J. Description of work performed:
K. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No
L. Contractor’s Role: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor ☐ Key Personnel
Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification
A. Customer or agency name:
B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):
C. Geographic description of services under this contract (i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands):
Section 3: Respondent Identification
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 3 of 9
A. Respondent’s name:
B. Respondent’s title:
C. Respondent’s phone number / fax number / e-mail address:
D. Respondent’s position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO, etc.):
E. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:
F. Other suggested points of contact:
Section 4: Performance Information
In the tables below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question. Provide supporting information for each response in the space provided. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. The performance rating scale is defined as follows:
Code Performance Rating
E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the
Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 9
Note: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” but instead include probing and direct questions to draw out the required information desired.
Technical Performance E V S M U N/A
T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
T2. How was the quality of technical system operations & maintenance testing and certification efforts?
T3. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?
T4. How adequate/effective was the System Engineering Process?
T5. How well did the contractor implement current quality processes, standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?
T6. How well did the contractor implement current standard practices for computer software design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?
T7. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 5 of 9
Program Management E V S M U N/A
P1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?
P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?
P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?
P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?
P5. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?
P6. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?
P7. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 6 of 9
Program Management E V S M U N/A
P8. How effective was the contractor’s acquisition management?
P9. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?
P10. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?
Transition / Phase-in E V S M U N/A
TP1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel?
TP2. How effective was the contractor in maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts?
Employee Retention / Attraction E V S M U N/A
E1. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort?
E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 7 of 9
Employee Retention / Attraction E V S M U N/A
E3. How effective was employee compensation towards quality of work?
Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation E V S M U N/A
S1. If the contract included FAR 52.219-9, to what degree was the contractor able to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan?
(Please state if FAR 52.219-9 was not included in the contract)
S2. If the contract included FAR 52.219-8, how effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?
(Please state if FAR 52.219-8 was not included in the contract)
Cost Performance E V S M U N/A
C1. How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs?
C2. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?
C3. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?
C4. How sufficient and timely was the contractor’s cost reporting?
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 9
Government Contracts Only: Was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience, or are there any pending terminations?
☐ Yes ☐ Default ☐ Convenience ☐ Pending Terminations ☐ No
If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).
SECTION 5: GENERAL COMMENT
Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I [ click and select an item ] award to him today given that I had a choice.
REMARKS:
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.
[click and pick the date]
Respondent’s Signature Date
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
Mailing Address:
375th CONS ATTN: Jody Noram 201 E. Winters Street, Bldg. 50 Scott AFB, IL 62220-5015
FAX to: N/A
E-Mail to: Regina Brand and Jody Noram at regina.brand@us.af.mil and jody.noram.1@us.af.mil respectively.
mailto:regina.brand@us.af.mil mailto:jody.noram.1@us.af.mil
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 9 of 9
| 2025-04-16T13:07:12-0500 | |
| NORAM.JODY.L.1139984214 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .