3. Aviano PPQ.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ANNOUNCEMENT FA568226Q8011

pg. 1

Competition Sensitive Information

Return to:

Aviano 31 Contracting Squadron, to both the below

POCs

Ms. Jessica Cuccagna jessica.cuccagna.it@us.af.mil

31 CONS/PKC

Tel: +39-0434-30-7138

DSN: (314) 632-7138

Electronic Return Mandated

Ms. Nicole Bellantuono nicole.bellantuono.it@us.af.mil

31 CONS/PKC

Tel: +39-0434-30-7354

DSN: (314) 632-7354

RESPONDING AGENCY/COMPANY/OFFEROR INFORMATION:

AGENCY/COMPANY/

OFFEROR: ADDRESS:

POINT OF CONTACT :

TITLE/RANK:

PHONE: EMAIL:

INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

Our company is planning to submit a proposal to the Government and is requesting that you complete the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and submit it to the Government Points of Contact (POCs) via e-mail at jessica.cuccagna.it@us.af.mil and nicole.bellantuono.it@us.af.mil.

We are requesting that you provide information regarding performance under Contract/Order No.

______________________ , Project _____________________________________________________________ .

The Government intends to obtain data addressing the following areas:

a.) Quality of Product or Service - Conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship, accuracy of reports, appropriateness of personnel, and technical excellence;

For the Government to compile its evaluation, we request that you complete the attached survey form and email it, and any other pertinent information, no later than the closing date on the announcement to jessica.cuccagna.it@us.af.mil and nicole.bellantuono.it@us.af.mil. Please contact the Contractor/Offeror for closing date information. Any relevant feedback you are willing to share would be vital in our assessment of the aforementioned Contractor/Offeror.

pg. 2

ADJECTIVEAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’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 was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. 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.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’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 were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the

Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the

Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal 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.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the

Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

pg. 3

Competition Sensitive [DATE]

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 5

AGENCY/COMPANY/OFFEROR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

COMPANY/OFFEROR NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER:

EVALUATION PERIOD: PROJECT NAME.:

RATING OFFICIAL (Government or Prime Contractor):

Rating Official’s Name (print) Rating Official’s Code/Company Name

Rating Official’s Email Address Rating Official’s Telephone No.

Company/Offeror performed work as: Prime Contractor_________ Subcontractor_________ JV__________

*Prime Contractor POC Prime Contractor Name________________ Phone__________________

List any subcontractor ___________________________________________________________________________________

Percentage of work performed by Company: __________ percent

Project completion percentage to date: __________ percent

Project Complexity: High__________ Medium__________ Routine__________

Project Type: Firm-Fixed Price __________ Cost Reimbursable ___________

Initial Project Cost: $ ______________________________________________________

Actual Project Cost: $ ______________________________________________________

Explain briefly the reason for the cost variation ________________________________________________________________

Please read the statements below, indicating your (the Rating Official’s) relative level of agreement in the box provided:

1. QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

EXCEPTIONAL

VERY

GOOD

SATISFACT

ORY

MARGINAL

UNSATIS-

FACTORY

(a) The Company/Offeror provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and industry standards of good workmanship

(b) The Company/Offeror submitted accurate data and reports

(c) The Company/Offeror utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.

(d) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

(e) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

(f) Would you hire or work with this firm again?

NOTE: For statements indicating “Exceptional” or “Unsatisfactory,” provide a brief explanation in the space below: