693KA8-24-DRAFTSIR-INVERSE_Attachment L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

INVERSE DRAFT SIR 693KA8-24-R-XXXXX

Attachment L-2 – Page 1

Attachment L-2

Past-Performance Questionnaire

Instructions to the Individual Completing the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ):

To assess Offerors responding to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Screening

Information Request (SIR) for Invoice Validation and Expense Reconciliation Services

(INVERSE), the FAA is seeking past performance information with respect to each Offeror.

You have been selected as a past performance reference by one of the Offerors. The name of the

Offeror, contract title, and contract number are identified on the next page under Block 1.

Within the PPQ, the Offeror is referred to as “the Contractor” relative to its support of your organization. Please do the following to complete and submit the PPQ:

• Correct any information in Block 1 that is inaccurate.

• Complete Block 2

• Complete Blocks 3a – 3f of the PPQ.

o The PPQ is predominantly in a multiple-choice format. Narrative explanations are only required when a rating of “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” or “No” is indicated.

o Enter all narrative explanations directly in to the PPQ form.

• Sign Block 4 (scanned wet ink signatures or electronic signatures are acceptable)

• Email the completed PPQ and e-mail to maria.j.ashby@faa.gov no later than TBD.

o The subject line in the submission e-mail should clearly indicate: INVERSE

Past-Performance Questionnaire Submission for <Contractor’s Name>.

o The e-mail message must originate from your government or corporate e-mail address, as applicable.

You may receive a follow-up phone call or e-mail from the Contracting Officer to confirm or clarify information.

If you have questions regarding this PPQ or require assistance, please email inquiries to maria.j.ashby@faa.gov or call Maria Ashby at (202) 267-3428.

mailto:maria.j.ashby@faa.gov mailto:maria.j.ashby@faa.gov

Attachment L-2 – Page 2

Past Performance Questionnaire

Block 1: Contract Information [Contractor to Complete]

a. Contractor name

b. Contract title:

c. Contract number

d. Role on contract (e.g., prime or subcontractor):

e. Period of Performance [Start Date] to [End Date or “Ongoing”]

f. Value of Contract Total Ceiling: [Enter Value]

Funds Obligated to Date: [Enter Value]

g. Contract Type(s) (e.g. Fixed Price, IDIQ, BPA, Cost

Reimbursement, Time and Materials, Labor Hour)

[If you indicate IDIQ contract or BPA, enter # of concurrent task orders or BPA calls]

h. Description [Brief description of work performed. Note alignment to specific INVERSE Functional Area(s)]

Block 2: Reference Information [Reference to Complete]

a. Name:

b. Name of Organization (Agency / Company):

c. Current Position Title:

d. Role on Referenced Contract (e.g., CO, COR, PM):

e. Mailing Address:

f. Telephone number:

g. E-mail Address:

Attachment L-2 – Page 3

For Blocks 3(a) – 3(f) Please objectively assess the Contractor in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below. If a performance element is not applicable to the contract or if you do not have personal knowledge of the

Contractor’s performance relative to that element, select “Not Applicable”

Block 3: Assessment of Performance Elements [Reference to Complete] Block 3(a): Element 1 - Quality of Service Delivery Assessment of the Contractor’s performance relative to consistently providing quality services that met or exceeded the requirements of the contract

Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional • Quality and performance of services frequently exceeded requirements and customer expectations.

• Very high quality of deliverables; re-work not required.

☐ Good • Quality and performance of services met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations.

• High quality of deliverables; re-work not required.

☐ Satisfactory • Quality and performance of services met requirements and customer expectations.

• No re-work of deliverables required beyond editorial updates.

☐ Marginal • Quality and performance of services did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations.

• Re-work of deliverables occasionally required to address quality issues and requirements shortfalls.

☐ Unsatisfactory • Quality and performance of services frequently did not meet requirements and was often below customer expectations.

• Re-work of deliverables frequently required to address quality issues and requirements shortfalls.

☐ Not Applicable • Not applicable

Explanation (Required if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Attachment L-2 – Page 4

Block 3(b): Element 2 - Timeliness of Performance Assessment of the Contractor’s performance relative to achieving milestones, fulfilling contract requirements on time, and meeting delivery schedules

Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional • Deliverables, products, and services consistently provided in advance of the required due dates.

• No corrective actions required to improve on-time delivery.

☐ Good • Deliverables, products, and services sometimes provided in advance of the required due dates.

• Corrective actions, if any were required, were very effective in improving on-time delivery.

☐ Satisfactory • Deliverables, products, and services generally provided by the required due dates.

• Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery were effective.

☐ Marginal • Deliverables, products, and services sometimes provided after the required due dates.

• Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery had minimal effectiveness.

☐ Unsatisfactory • Deliverables, products, and services consistently provided after the required due dates.

• Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery were not effective.

Attachment L-2 – Page 5

Block 3(c): Element 3 – Cost Control Assessment of the Contractor’s performance relative to successfully maintaining cost control and completing work efforts within the proposed cost or target price.

Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional • Met or exceeded contract requirements at more than 10% below cost estimates or target prices.

• Effectively applied earned value management or other management techniques

• No cost or price issues encountered.

☐ Good • Met or exceeded contract requirements at 5-10% below cost estimates or target prices.

• Applied earned value management or other management techniques.

• Quickly resolved any cost or price issues.

☐ Satisfactory • Performed within cost estimates or target prices while meeting contract requirements.

• Resolved any cost or price issues within a reasonable amount of time.

• No requests for recovery of costs above the cost estimates or target prices.

☐ Marginal • Cost overruns (30% or less) on the contract.

• Contractor-recommended strategies for bringing costs or prices within expectations were not effective.

☐ Unsatisfactory • Significant cost overruns (more than 30%) on the contract.

• No strategies or corrective actions recommended by the Contractor to bring costs or prices within expectations.

Attachment L-2 – Page 6

Block 3(d): Element 4 – Program Management Assessment of the Contractor’s performance relative to: (1) effectively managing programs, (2) assessing performance and implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and (3) providing adequate supervision of contractor personnel and their work efforts.

Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional • Contractor’s Program Management function was fully engaged in oversight of work efforts.

• Instituted well-defined and repeatable management processes to assess performance and avoid the need for corrective actions.

• Staff deployed very efficiently. All deadlines met or exceeded with the least staff necessary.

☐ Good • Contractor’s Program Management function was consistently engaged in oversight of work efforts.

• Corrective actions were identified in a timely manner and successfully implemented as needed.

• Staff deployed efficiently. Tasks completed in an efficient manner without surplus staff.

☐ Satisfactory • Contractor’s Program Management function was adequately engaged in oversight of work efforts.

• Corrective actions were adequately identified and implemented as needed.

• Staff deployed appropriately. Tasks completed with reasonable number of staff.

☐ Marginal • Contractor’s Program Management function was not consistently engaged in oversight of work efforts.

• Corrective actions were not consistently identified and implemented as needed.

• Staff not consistently deployed efficiently. Required additional staff to complete the task.

☐ Unsatisfactory • Contractor’s Program Management function was rarely engaged in oversight of work efforts.

• Corrective actions were not identified and implemented as needed.

• Staff always deployed inefficiently. Required many additional staff to complete the task.

Attachment L-2 – Page 7

Block 3(e): Element 5 – Customer Relationship Assessment of the Contractor’s performance relative to effectively communicating with customers, being proactive, and acting in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

Rating Definition

☐ Exceptional • Consistent and effective level of communication with customers.

• Very high level of customer satisfaction.

• Standard practice was to act proactively.

• Frequently responsive in advance of the expected timeframes.

• Standard practice was to act in partnership with the customer to achieve or exceed program objectives.

☐ Good • Consistent level of communication with customers.

• High level of customer satisfaction.

• Often acted proactively.

• Responsive within and/or in advance of the expected timeframes.

• Frequently acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

☐ Satisfactory • Adequate level of communication with customers.

• Adequate level of customer satisfaction.

• Acted proactively.

• Responsive within the expected timeframes.

• Acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

☐ Marginal • Inconsistent level of communication with customers.

• Low level of customer satisfaction.

• Did not consistently act proactively.

• Not consistently responsive within the expected timeframes.

• Infrequently acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

☐ Unsatisfactory • Inadequate level of communication with customers.

• Very low level of customer satisfaction.

• Did not act proactively.

• Rarely responsive within the expected timeframes.

• Did not act in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

Attachment L-2 – Page 8

Block 3(f): Willing to Work with Contractor Again?

Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

☐ Yes ☐ No

Any additional comments you would like to share (Required if “No”):

Block 4: Signature [Reference to Complete]

Signature Date