Att J.2-9 - PPQ - I&T.pdf
PDF 115 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80GRC026R0009
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template and instructions for the Space Power and Reactor Capabilities (SPARC) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract.
The PPQ template is designed for offerors to distribute to previous customers to gather past performance feedback. NASA will use the responses to evaluate contractors' Relevant Experience and Past Performance. The questionnaire requests respondent information (name, title, contact details, company affiliation) and general contract information including contract title, number, type, period of performance, total value, business size classification, contract description, number of employees, and relevance to SPARC or the Awardable Sample Task Order (ASTO). The form includes eight screening questions addressing the respondent's relationship to the offeror, percentage of work performed, corporate relationships, contract terminations, cost overruns/underruns, and willingness to do business again. Question 9 requires raters to assign performance ratings across 15 criteria organized into five categories: Technical Ratings (4 items covering technical approach, requirements achievement, deficiency correction, and documentation quality); Management Ratings (5 items addressing technical management, workforce management, workload flexibility, business management, and subcontractor management); Compliance Ratings (2 items on safety/environmental and contractual compliance); Cost/Financial Rating (1 item on cost control); and Schedule Ratings (3 items on schedule adherence, reporting timeliness, and adaptability). Rating options are E (Excellent), VG (Very Good), G (Good), S (Satisfactory), US (Unsatisfactory), and N (Not Applicable). Completed forms must be submitted via email to Noah S. Garrison, Contracting Officer, by the proposal due date [to be determined], using "SPARC/ASTO Past Performance Questionnaire" as the email subject line.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Space Power and Reactor Capabilities
(SPARC)
Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) Contract
Attachment J.2-9
Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Instructions and Template
SPARC Attachment J.2-9 Version 1 – August 27, 2026
Information for Potential Offerors –
The SPARC Final Request for Proposals (RFP) will include this attachment as a template for the offeror to send out to previous customers. Responses will be evaluated by NASA as part of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation. The draft template is included below for review and comment:
Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently conducting a competitive procurement intended to establish a pool of MAIDIQ vendors. This is referred to as the Space Power and Reactor Capabilities (SPARC) Contract. Selected contractors will then compete for subsequent Task Orders solicited by NASA.
The scope of the MAIDIQ contract can be found in attachment J.1-1 SPARC Statement of Work and generally provides for wide-ranging support with regard the design and development of non-terrestrial nuclear reactor systems.
Along with the evaluation of Offerors for the award of SPARC contracts, NASA intends to evaluate proposals for an Awardable Sample Task Order (ASTO). The ASTO’s scope can be found in attachment J.2-5 Lunar Reactor - 1 Phase 1 Awardable Sample Task Order Statement of Work. Generally, the ASTO provides for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) level design for Lunar Reactor 1, the development of an Engineering Test Unit (ETU) and testing of the ETU.
General Information
Offeror’s Information (Company being evaluated):
Company Name Contract Title Number Type
Period of Performance Total Value (inclusive of exercised options)
Business Size Classification Contract Description Number of employees on contract
Do you believe the work completed under this contract is relevant to:
SPARC, the ASTO, or Both?
Instructions
Please respond to the attached questionnaire. Questions 1 - 8 are self-explanatory. For Question 9, mark the appropriate block, indicating the contractor’s past performance as shown for in each area identified. Examples and comments to support your ratings, especially if VERY HIGH OR VERY LOW LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE, are particularly useful. If the subject contract did not require performance in a given work area, please mark N/A.
Additional pages may be used if desired.
Please send the completed form via email by the proposal due date [TBD].
Please use “SPARC/ASTO Past Performance Questionnaire” in the subject line of the email submission.
Noah S. Garrison, Contracting Officer
E-mail: noah.s.garrison@nasa.gov
1. Respondent Information
Name Title Contact Information Phone Number E-mail Company Name Address City, State, Zip
Length of time involved with offeror
2. During this contract’s period of performance, this offeror was a:
[ ] Prime Contractor [ ] Significant Subcontractor
[ ] Team Member [ ] Other (please describe)
3. What percentage of the total contract value did this company perform? [ ]%
4. Does a corporate relationship exist between the company being evaluated and your organization?
[ ] No [ ] Yes
5. Please provide any unusual contract features or conditions, if any existed:
6. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience?
If yes, please explain the reason(s) for termination (i.e., inability to meet cost or delivery schedules, technical performance, etc.)
7. Was/is there a cost overrun/underrun?
If yes, please describe the magnitude and the reason:
8. Would you do business with the Contractor again?
If no, please explain:
9. Please rate the overall past performance of the contractor in the following areas using the definitions given at the bottom of the following table:
E VG G S US N Comment Technical Ratings
1. Effectiveness in formulating a technical approach including understanding of the technical issues and appropriateness of skill level/mix
2. Effectiveness in meeting contract technical requirements (quality and performance deliverables)
3. Effectiveness in correcting performance deficiencies.
4. Quality of reports and documentation
Management Ratings
5. Effectiveness of technical management, including the degree of customer monitoring and guidance required
6. Effectiveness in recruiting, maintaining, and managing a workforce with the required skill mix.
7. Effectiveness in responding and managing fluctuating workloads and task orders
8. Effectiveness of business management, including the degree of customer monitoring and guidance required
9. Record in effectively selecting and managing subcontractors
Compliance Ratings
10. Compliance with safety, health and environmental requirements
11. Compliance with contractual terms and conditions including intellectual property requirements.
Cost/Financial Rating
12. Effectiveness in controlling contract costs and timeliness of submitting cost reporting
Schedule Ratings
13. Effectiveness in meeting contract schedules (timeliness of deliverables)
14. Timeliness of reports and documentation
15. Ability to adapt to changing technical requirements in a timely manner
Overall Rating
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .