Attachment 0012 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND-DETROIT ARSENAL

6501 EAST 11 MILE ROAD

DETROIT ARSENAL, MICHIGAN 48397-5000

SUBJECT: Solicitation W56HZV-20-R-0164, Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) Directorate of Ground Combat Systems (GCS) Self-Propelled Howitzer Systems (SPHS) M109A7 Paladin and M992A3 Carrier, Ammunition, Tracked (CAT) Threshold II (T2) Armor Kits, Past Performance Questionnaire.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

T2 ARMOR KITS SOLICITATION

1. The United States Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) intends to issue contract Solicitation W56HZV-20-R-0164 for the effort described herein. The objective of this effort is the procurement of armor kits consisting of Theater Provided Equipment (TPE) and Modification Kits for the M109A7 Paladin and M992A3 CAT vehicles.

2. Offerors interested in proposing on the work have been requested to send the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to points of contact as defined in Section L of this solicitation. In this regard, we are requesting your assistance in completing this questionnaire so that we may evaluate the offeror in the area of past performance. The attached questionnaire has been developed for ease of electronic completion. Please provide your comments regarding the overall assessment of the contractor’s performance in each of the three areas of consideration in the gray boxes for the identified contract. Any additional information, which your organization deems relevant or important, will be welcome by our evaluation team. If a question on the questionnaire is not applicable, please so indicate. It is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Section L provides multiple POCs and currently gives the option on which to choose by stating and/or. Please relook and specify for clarity Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Will in PADDS.

3. Upon completion of this questionnaire, please forward by electronic mail to Elise C. Wong at elise.c.wong.civ@army.mil, Regina N. Ihns at regina.n.ihns.civ@army.mil, and Julianna R. Sant at julianna.r.santi.civ@army.mil. Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Do you want this to be an or or an AND Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): corrected

4. Please complete and submit the questionnaire by XX June 2023. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire

Please provide your candid response to the following questions. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual and accurate as possible. If you do not have the appropriate knowledge with the company in question, please forward this questionnaire to the person who does. Upon completion of this questionnaire, please forward by electronic email to Contract Specialist Elise C. Wong, at elise.c.wong.civ@army.mil, Regina N. Ihns at regina.n.ihns.civ@army.mil, and Contracting Officer Julianna R. Santi at julianna.r.santi.civ@army.mil by 0X June 2023. Thank you for your assistance. Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Do you want this to be an OR or an AND? Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): corrected Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Update Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): updated

PART I - IDENTIFICATION (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. RELEVANT CONTRACT

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract/Task Order Number:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Contract Period of Performance End Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion:

Brief Description of the Relevant Contract Scope:

B. OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II - EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

RATING SCALE & DEFINITIONS

Table 1 identifies the rating scale and descriptions. Please apply the rating that most closely matches your assessment for each area of consideration listed below. Please include a written narrative for each rating applied, utilizing the adjectival rating definition in Table 1. Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Is this typical to introduce another (different) rating scale with different description when we are evaluating to a different scale? Are the ratings and definitions necessary? Comment by Costa, Doreen J CIV USARMY ACC (USA): These are the same ratings scales used in CPARS. The SSEB does not "rate" how well an offeror performed, they merely assess how well the offeror performed based on qualitative information (what is being obtained in this PPQ). The SSEB team is not applying ratings from the SSP, this is qualitative information from the contract holders used in the evaluation. Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): S3CoE and business legal discussed on 21 Apr 2023.

Table 1

1. Quality:

Assess the quality of the contractors’ deliverable products or services in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. This includes the following (as applicable): product performance, systems engineering efforts, software engineering efforts, product assurance/quality control, logistics support, standards of good workmanship. Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Have we confirmed all of these relate to the areas of relevancy we are evaluating? Comment by Costa, Doreen J CIV USARMY ACC (USA): This comment applies to all remaining comments:

These are the same categories outlined in CPARS, and for consistency, we're using the same categories here in the PPQ. This is qualitative information on the offerors performance on the proposed contract. It's NOT tied to relevancy determination. Comment by Wong, Elise C CIV USARMY ACC (USA): S3CoE and business legal discussed on 21 Apr 2023.

|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable

Comments:

For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only some somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.

2. Schedule:

Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements. Please include the contractor’s efforts that contributed, negatively or positively, to the delivery schedule. Please provide in the comments section if any Delivery extensions were granted, and why the extensions were needed (i.e. the extent of the fault of the contractor). Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): Wouldn't production rate be more relevant if that's what we are evaluating? Or are these standard areas to be evaluated in PP?

|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable

For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only some somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. delays by the customer/end user, changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor (e.g. unusually severe weather or default of a subcontractor beyond the control of both the Contractor and subcontractor).

3. Management / Business Relations:

Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): How does this information relate to our definition of relevancy?

Contract. This includes (as applicable): timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award, and management of subcontracts.

|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable

For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only some somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.

4. Regulatory Compliance

Assess the contractor’s compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to applicable regulations and codes, considering aspects of performance. This includes compliance with (as applicable): financial, environmental, safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract terms and conditions Comment by Woods, Rachel E CIV USARMY TACOM (USA): How does this information relate to our definition of relevancy?

|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable

For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault and/or if other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor played a predominant role.

5. General Comments.

Any additional information, which your organization deems relevant or important, will be welcome by our evaluation team. Please provide any other relevant or important performance information.

PART III - RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION

Please provide a point of contact who compiled or completed this questionnaire and who, if needed, may be contacted by our evaluation team regarding the information provided in this questionnaire.

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

Fax Number:

E-mail Address:

Once Filled In, this document is considered Source Selectin Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 image1.png image2.png