Attach 6 - PPQ Instructions.pdf

Little Rock Air Force Base, AR

PPQ Instructions 1

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

INSTRUCTIONS

Provide one Past Performance evaluation for each of the projects listed as “Example Projects” in Part I Section F of the completed Standard Form 330. For evaluation purposes, the term “contract” is intended to mean “project”.

FORMAT

(i) Print on 8 ½” x 11” paper. Paper for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams may not exceed 11” x 17”.

(ii) A page is defined as one side of a sheet of paper containing information.

(iii)Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(iv) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

(v) Limited to no more than 3 pages per contract listed. Only references for relevant past efforts/contracts are desired.

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, etc.

b) Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirement. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the present acquisition.

In compliance with the direction in the FAR, the information contained in this evaluation is not subject to view by anyone other than the designated source selection evaluation personnel.

PPQ Instructions 2

Furnish the following information for each Example Project listed in Part I Section F of the SF 330:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Client

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

A Past Performance Questionnaire addressing the information listed above is provided for your use. Refer to the attached Past Performance Questionnaire document.

DEFINITIONS AND RATING GUIDELINES

The following Factors/Ratings tables summarize the Architect/Engineer’s past performance in each of the following rating areas. Each criterion should be assigned a rating, from highest to lowest, of Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, and Not Applicable. However, the evaluator is encouraged to provide comments on any rating to further support a particular rating.

The following definitions and instructions should be used as guidance to aid in evaluating the criteria in the Factors/Ratings tables. Please read the definitions and instructions before rating any criteria to be sure that each criterion is graded in the context of the definitions.

PPQ Instructions 3

Code Performance Rating

E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed relevant to the effort described in the Pre-solicitation. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (see table below):

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.