Draft_RFP_Attachment_C-PPQ-16009.pdf

ATTACHMENT C:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE FOR

RESEARCH SUPPORT BUILDING

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

21000 BROOKPARK ROAD, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44135

16009 February 1, 2018

DRAFT

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTENTION ALL OFFERORS:

The following questionnaire shall be forwarded to the owners of the three projects proposed by your firm under the past performance evaluation factor for this solicitation.

It is recommended that a letter authorizing the reference to provide past performance information to the Government be included with the questionnaire. Following is a sample letter that NASA recommends be sent along with the questionnaire.

Sample Letter:

Dear Client:

We are currently responding to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Solicitation Number ___ for the procurement of an Offeror to provide all Construction services for the Research Support Building (RSB) at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH.

NASA is placing increased emphasis in their procurements on past performance as a source selection factor. NASA is requiring that clients of entities responding to their solicitations be identified and their participation in the evaluation process be requested. In the event you are contacted for information on work we have performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms. of your organization as the point of contact based on their knowledge concerning our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to: .

Sincerely, Name Title Firm

INSTRUCTION PAGE

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER

EVALUATOR

You have been selected by an Offeror to complete the attached questionnaire that concerns an evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance on a project completed or in progress for you.

Please complete the following questionnaire concerning evaluation of the General Construction Offeror’s past performance. Your response to this evaluation will be utilized by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for selection.

NASA is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. Your complete response is critical, as NASA will rely upon this information, in the selection of a firm for the proposed construction project. Please answer all questions by circling only one (1) response per question.

Your initials are required after each section of the questionnaire and you will be required to sign this evaluation at the end of the questionnaire.

NASA officials may contact you concerning responses made by you in this questionnaire.

If you have any questions and/or concerns, you may contact the NASA Contracting Officer, Scott D. Haumessser on 216-433-6800.

Instructions for returning this evaluation:

Completed questionnaires will be considered procurement sensitive information and will not be seen or reviewed by the offeror in question or any other party not having a need to know.

Electronic copies of the completed questionnaire should be emailed to Scott D. Haumesser attention at scott.d.haumesser@nasa.gov.

Hard copies may be mailed to:

NASA Glenn Research Center Institutional Services Branch Attn: Haumesser, Scott / Contracting Officer Mail Stop: 60-1 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135

OWNER EVALUATION COVER SHEET

General Offeror being evaluated:

Owner Name (Organization Name, Evaluator Name, Address, Zip, and Telephone Number)

Name, Location, Size (Square Footage) and Description of Project - Use additional sheets if necessary.

Award Amount: Original: $ Final: $

Type of Contract:

Percent of Final Contract Amount resulting from owner initiated changes

Status of project: active 100% complete

If active, expected completion date

Would you award a contract to this firm again for similar work? yes no

ADJECTIVE 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. 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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):