Att L-2 Vol 3 PPQ.docx

SECTION L – VOLUME 3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please return the completed questionnaire within 2 weeks from receipt to Sarah Metcalf, Contract Specialist, at sarah.e.metcalf2.civ@us.navy.mil, and to Bevereley Rhamdeow, Contracting Officer, at beverley.s.rhamdeow.civ@us.navy.mil.

1. CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION

a. Contractor:

b. Program Title:

c. Contract Number:

d. Type of Contract: Percent Complete:

e. Period of Performance being assessed:

Note: Whether identified or not, if you have any knowledge of other contracts for the identified contractor, you are requested to complete a questionnaire for each contract or subcontract similar to this acquisition.

2. RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION

a. Name:

b. Agency:

c. Position:

d. Relation to Program:

e. Phone:

g. Email Address:

f. Date Questionnaire Completed:

3. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

3a. Please provide a short description of the subject contract.

3b. Please check those activities, which are applicable to your program

In support of Fleet Support Teams (FST), and Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) supporting multiple T/M/S aircraft sites:

☐ Engineering Support Services:

☐ Existing systems- On-site technical assistance for existing aircraft, aircraft components, aircraft structures, engines and support systems (e.g., Test Program Sets (TPS)), as well as depot utilities and depot facility equipment.

☐ New systems- analyze, fabricate, integrate, deliver, and verify new aircraft and depot facility systems.

☐ Modifications to existing systems- analyze, fabricate, integrate, deliver, install, and test, as well as verify and validate modifications to existing aircraft and depot facility systems (e.g., Test Program Sets (TPS)).

☐ Modification of existing Support Equipment - analyze, fabricate, integrate, deliver, install, and test, as well as verify and validate modifications to existing support equipment.

☐ New systems research and development- analyze, fabricate, deliver, install, and test, as well as verify and validate new systems research and development.

☐ Production Engineering Services: Provide FRC site Production Support engineering services (e.g., Test Program Sets (TPS)) including:

☐ Configuration Management of Aircraft and Aircraft Components ☐ Logistics Support Services:

☐ Level of repair analysis (LORA) ☐ Design Interface (DI) ☐Maintenance planning (MP) ☐ Logistics support analysis (LSA) ☐ Environmental logistics, integration, supply support and facilities ☐ Maintenance Scheduling / Management, capability establishment ☐ Supportability test and evaluation (ST&E) ☐ Training support and support equipment ☐ Metrology and calibration;

☐ Industrial Ops, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Sources (DMSMS)

4. PERFORMANCE LEVELS

4.1 PERFORMANCE GRADES

Use the following grades to provide the rating where requested in Section 4.2:

Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. 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.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory - Performance meets 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. Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Marginal - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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. Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

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. Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

4.2 QUESTIONS

4.2.1. QUALITY

a. What kind of technical performance strengths or weaknesses were experienced by the contractor?

b. What was the cause of these technical strengths or weaknesses?

c. If there were any weaknesses identified above, what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

d. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Quality performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.2. SCHEDULE

a. What delivery/schedule strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of the timeliness of completing the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance)?

b. What was the significance and cause of these delivery/schedule strengths or weaknesses?

c. If there were any weaknesses identified above, what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

a. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Schedule performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.3. COST

a. What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost?

b. If the contractor experienced an overrun or underrun, please provide the percentage and describe the significance, causes, and contractor proposed solutions.

c. If not described in item b., what was the significance and cause of these Cost strengths or weaknesses?

d. If there were any weaknesses identified above (outside of those not described in item b.), what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

e. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Cost performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.4. MANAGEMENT

4.2.4.1. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENSS

What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), or other Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)), the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction? Consider the contractor’s responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract/order requirements during the period or performance specified above.

4.2.4.2. SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT

What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the prime contractor with respect to the timely award and management of subcontracts? Did the prime contractor devote effort to managing subcontracts and were subcontractors an integral part of the contractor’s team? Did the prime contractor make an effort to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and apply corporate resources in a timely fashion to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance? Did the prime contractor ensure prompt subcontractor payments? Did the prime contractor manage subcontractors to ensure compliance with labor and safety standards at the subcontract level? If this contract is set aside for small business, did the contractor comply with any limitations on subcontracting?

4.2.4.3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND OTHER MANAGEMENT

a. What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of discharging its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identify and apply resources required to meet schedule requirements; assign responsibilities for tasks/actions required by contract/order; and communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner?

b. What were the contractor’s risk management practices, especially the ability to identify risks and formulate and implement risk mitigation plans?

c. If applicable, identify and provide information on any other areas that are unique to the contract/order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere under the Management Assessment.

4.2.4.4. Overall Management Assessment

Overall, I would rate the contractor's Management performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.5. OTHER

Is there any other information regarding this contract/order that you think would be helpful to our evaluation? If so please explain. Examples of additional information that could be helpful to our evaluation include information on (1) problems or strengths with regard to key personnel and (2) the kind of business relationship problems or strengths with regard to management of subcontracts, cooperation with business partners/customers, customer satisfaction, etc.

4.3 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I _______ recommend them for similar requirement in the future.

☐ would ☐ would not

Signature _____________________________________________ Date _____________ Please note that electronic signatures are acceptable. An e-mail from the originator of this document will suffice. Signatures (electronic or hand written) verify that the signatory completed this form and agrees with the information contained within it.