1.17Offerors Past Performance Data.doc

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

RFP: N0024422R0086

Offeror’s Past Performance Data (OPPD)

OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

When filled in, this document is Source Selection Sensitive Information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer/Agency (name, e-mail address, and telephone number) and Contracting Officer and Technical Point of Contact (name, e-mail address, and telephone number) _________________________________

B. Contractor: _______________________________________________________________________

C. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to: _________________________________

D. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, also include Delivery Order Numbers: _______________________________________

E. Contract type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.): ______________________________

F. Was this a competitive acquisition? Yes _____ No _____

G. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________ H. Total Labor-Hours of Effort _________________________________

I. Initial Contract cost: $____________________________

J. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

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

L. Description of service provided/ Contract Deliverables:

SECTION 2: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name: ___________________________________________________________________

B. Evaluator's title: _____________________________________________________________________

C. Evaluator’s organization: ______________________________________________________________

D. Evaluator's phone/fax number: _________________________________________________________

E. Additional Point of Contact and phone number: __________________________________________

SECTION 3: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Experience in planning and scheduling of equipment preventative and repair maintenance actions to meet mission requirement and timeline.

Experience in maintenance administrative functions including personnel and work management, task prioritization and scheduling to minimize equipment downtime and meet mission requirement and timeline.

Experience in the use of Government maintenance management software and programs including maintenance scheduling, repair action documentation, repair parts research and inventory monitoring of Government assets.

Experience in the use of maintenance manuals and procedures such as technical manuals, specifications, maintenance cards, etc.

Experience in preparing, packaging and shipping of Government assets for maintenance related transfer and/or exchange.

Experience in preparation and timely submission of maintenance reports and budget to reflect real time status of equipment operating conditions, maintenance performed, planned maintenance actions and recommendations.

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. The scale is defined as follows:

RISK RATING

A – The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, highly effective. Performance of completed contracts either was consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

B - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance over completed contracts either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

C - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the contractor were, or are expected to be, for the most part effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

D - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet some contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance reflected some serious problems for which the contractor either failed to identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be implemented were, or are expected to be, only partially effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of mediocre quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance might be difficult to achieve or that it can occur only with increased levels of government management and oversight.

F - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur with the period of performance. The assessed prior performance reflected serious problem(s) for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions or for which corrective actions, implemented, or proposed to be implemented, were, or are expected to be, mostly ineffective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance will not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of government management and oversight.

Neutral - The offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance based on the offeror’s past performance record.

Program Management

P1. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

P2. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

P3. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

P4. Ability to understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements

P5. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

P6. Quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts

P7. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts

P8. Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

P9. Contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support.

Cost Performance

C1 Accuracy in forecasting contract costs

C2 Ability to meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs

C3 Ability to alert Government of unforeseen costs before they occur

C4 Sufficiency and timeliness of cost reporting

C5 Contractor’s demonstrated compliance with a subcontracting plan

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Would you have any reservation about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature

Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance.

Please email this completed questionnaire to steffany.becker-puls@navy.mil