Exhibit 13 Rev 1 - OMESIII PastPerfQues.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NASA/GSFC Omnibus Multidiscipline Engineering Services (OMES) III FINAL Request for Proposal
- Solicitation number
- 80GSFC21R0046_FinalRFP
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
RFP 80GSFC21R0046
EXHIBIT 13 OMES III
REVISION 1,
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
RFP 80GSFC21R0046
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
(Updated May, 2018)
Sections 1-3 provide for contract-related descriptive information and identification of the evaluator.
Section 4 lists the major work elements within our Statement of Work (SOW). Please provide your assessment of the “relevant experience” and “performance” associated with our SOW evidenced within the contract for which you are a reference. “Experience” means a contractor who has performed work in the specific SOW Element. “Did not Perform” means that the specific SOW element was not performed under the contract.
S ection 5 evaluates the contractor’s technical, schedule, and cost performance and management. (Additional pages may be used for comments if desired). If you cannot answer any questions, please circle “N/R” for Not Rated.
The following definitions are offered for your use in assigning a performance rating for each of the factors in Sections 5 and 6:
Very High
(VH)
The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.
| High (H) |
| The Offeror’s relevant past performance demonstrates very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. |
Moderate
(M) The Offeror’s relevant past performance demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.
Low
(L) The Offeror’s relevant past performance meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.
Very Low
(VL)
The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect overall performance.
| N/R |
| Not Rated |
Section 6 provides for evaluation of the contractor’s management of cost and award/incentive fee history.
| RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO | NASA Goddard Space Flight Center |
| BY JUNE 7, 2022. | Attn: Tasha Williams, Code 210.M |
Greenbelt, MD 20771 Phone: 301-286-3459 e-mail: tasha.williams@nasa.gov
RFP 80GSFC21R0046
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. C ontract Information
A. Name of Company/Division Being Evaluated:
B. Address:_ _
C. Contractor Cage Code and/or DUNS number
D. Contract Number: _
E. Contract Type: _
F. Period of Performance (including options): From: To: _
G. Total Contract Value:_ _
| H. Award Information: | Competitive: Yes_ | No_ |
| Basis of Selection: | Technical _ Cost/Price _ Other (specify) |
2. Description of Contract
Briefly describe the services provided under this contract:
During the contract performance being evaluated, this firm was the:
| Prime Contractor | Significant Subcontractor | _ Team Member | _ |
| Other (describe)_ | _ |
Does a corporate or business relationship exist between the firm being evaluated and your organization?
Yes _ No _ . If yes, please describe:
3. E valuator Information
Name: _ Title: _ Agency/Company: _ _ E-mail Address: Phone: Date Questionnaire Completed: Role in Program/Contract: _ _ Length of Involvement in this Program/ Contract: _
P AST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
4. SOW Survey Relevance Ratings: Please check the appropriate blocks for Relevance (Performed or Did Not Perform)
SOW ELEMENT
SIGNIFICANT
MODERATE
MINIMAL/ DID NOT PERFORM
PERFORMANCE RATING
(Please circle)
FUNCTION 1 – Technology Development Services
Instrument Electronics Systems Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Thermal Control Systems Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Power Systems Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Cryogenic and Fluids Systems Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Robotic Technology Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
FUNCTION 2 – Pre-Formulation and Formulation Studies
System Definition Study Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
FUNCTION 3 – Implementation Phase Services
Mission Systems Engineering
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Software Systems Engineering, Studies, Analysis and Support
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Fabrication, Assembly and Testing Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Integration, Test, and Verification Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Mission Assurance and Systems Safety Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
EEE Parts Program Services
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 4
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
5. General Performance Survey
| NO |
| PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
(Please Circle)
QUALITY
| 1. |
| Quality of services and support provided |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 2. |
| Timely identification and mitigation of risks |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 3. |
| Ability to identify and correct performance deficiencies in a timely manner |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 4. |
| Demonstrated understanding and compliance with mission safety requirements |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Comment:
SCHEDULE
| 5. |
| Timeliness, quality, and accuracy of schedule estimates and reporting |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 6. |
| Ability to meet/exceed schedule milestones |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Comment:
COST
| 7. |
| Ability to establish realistic cost estimates and adhere to estimated costs |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 8. |
| Ability to anticipate, identify and control cost growth. |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Comment:
BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT
| 9. |
| Communicating/interfacing with Government and overall responsiveness to Government requests |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 10. |
| Ability to effectively manage the contract including subcontractor performance, if applicable |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
11.
Ability to recruit and retain highly skilled personnel, including ability to fill key vacancies in a timely manner.
VH
H
M
L
VL
N/R
| 12. |
| Adequacy of Contractor’s system(s) for processing task orders and/or changes. |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
| 13. |
| Ability to meet Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals |
| VH |
| H |
| M |
| L |
| VL |
| N/R |
Comment:
This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104.
RFP 80GSFC21R0046
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Section 6:
What is the Contract Value:
| Initial Value | Current Value | ||
| Estimated Cost: | $ | $ | _ |
Fee: $ $ _
Total Value: $ $
What are the total contract expenditures to date (cost/fees to date based on invoices, reports, etc)?
What is the Annual Contract Value to Date (The current contract expenditures to date divided by the number of years of performance to date)?
For example (note, these example numbers may not relate to this specific procurement):
Assume your contract is a current five year contract, is still ongoing, and the latest cost report reflects a cost/fee of $43,500,000 through the first 2 years and 4 months (to date). In this example, current/total Contract Expenditures incurred to Date are $43,500,000 and associated period of performance for those expenditures, expressed in years, is 2.33 years.
Therefore, the Average Annual Cost/Fee Incurred to Date: $18,669,528 ($43,500,000/2.33 years)
Was there a cost overrun? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain:
If this was an award fee contract, what are the individual and/or average ratings of performance by your organization? Please attach any available award fee letters or database entries.
Please comment on particularly strong/weak points of Contractor’s performance (technical, schedule, and/or cost). If the Overall Contract Performance Rating below is less than Very High, please provide some explanation in this section on why a higher rating was not provided.
Overall Contract Performance Rating (circle one)
Very High High Moderate Low Very Low If less than Very High Performance Rating, please explain:
Please add any other comments you may feel are pertinent.
_ Rater’s Signature Date
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .