Attachment 01 - PPQ.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80KSC022R0015
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 02 - Synopsis Revisions.pdf | ||
| Attachment 01 - Government Responses to Questions.pdf | ||
| 80KSC022R0015-0002 signed.pdf | ||
| 80KSC022R0015 Amendment 01.pdf | ||
| Attachment 02 - FAR Provisions.pdf | ||
| Attachment 03 - IDIQ Question Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 04 - SF330.pdf | ||
| NERCC Synopsis.pdf |
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
ATTACHMENT 1
SYNOPSIS NUMBER: 80KSC022R0015
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS AND RATING GUIDELINES
Instructions
This evaluation is to be completed as indicated below. The Architect-Engineering (A-E) team must provide one evaluation for each past performance customer contact identified in section F of SF 330. This package consists of the following:
| Section | Description | Who Completes |
| Section I | Basic Contract Information | Architect & Engineer team |
| being evaluated. | ||
| Section II | Evaluator Identification Information | Customer Evaluator |
| Section III | A-E Past Performance Questionnaire | Customer Evaluator |
Past Performance Questionnaires will not be accepted directly from the A-E team. Customer Evaluators must send evaluations directly to the Contracting Officer. The Customer Evaluator must submit their completed questionnaires to the address listed below, to arrive no later than 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) on November 29, 2022.
| Name: | Daniel Heggen | ||
| Email Address: | daniel.j.heggen@nasa.gov | ||
| Mailing Address: | NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center | ||
| Procurement Office Code: OP-CS |
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899
And
| Name: | Randall A. Gumke | ||
| Email Address: | randall.a.gumke@nasa.gov | ||
| Mailing Address: | NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center | ||
| Procurement Office Code: OP-CS | |||
| Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 |
Section I To be completed by the A-E team submitting a submission for evaluation.
A-E Team Name:
Contract Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Award Date:
Contract Completion Date:
Point of Contact (Customer Evaluator) Name/Address/Office Phone Number:
Brief Description of Work Performed:
Section II To be completed by Customer Evaluator.
NASA will NOT divulge the names of the individuals providing reference information about an A-E team’s past performance.
Name of A-E Contractor Being Evaluated:
A-E Contractor’s Status (Prime or Sub-Consultant):
A-E Contract Number:
Description of A-E Services Provided:
A-E Contract Period of Performance:
| A-E Contract or Subcontract Value at Award: |
| $ |
| A-E Contract or Subcontract Value at Completion: |
| $ |
For design contracts which were completed by the A-E team and awarded for construction
1) The final estimated construction contract award price
2) The actual construction award price
1) $
2) $
Evaluator’s Company/Agency Name:
Evaluator’s Name (Typed/Printed):
Evaluator’s Signature:
Phone Number:
Facsimile Number:
E-mail address:
Dates of Involvement in Contract:
Date Questionnaire Completed:
Section III
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PAST PERFORMANCE REPORT
RATING DEFINITIONS
For each question below, please rate the contractor from Unsatisfactory to Excellent (as defined below) and please elaborate on the specifics of your rating in the Narrative Summary. A rating of Not Applicable should be used if either the question is not applicable, or the answer is unknown. The Not Applicable rating is neutral and will have no impact on the assessment of Past Performance. The Contracting Officer may contact the respondent for additional information, if needed.
| Quality of Work |
| Cost Control |
& Estimating
| Compliance with Performance Schedules |
| Management Effectiveness |
Excellent
| There were no quality problems. |
| There were no cost issues. |
| There were no delays. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were effective and responsive. |
Good
| Technical issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were usually effective and responsive. |
Fair
| Technical issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were somewhat effective and responsive. |
Poor
| Technical issues required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were marginally effective and responsive. |
Unsatisfactory
| Non-conformances or technical issues compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Client’s resources. |
| Cost issues compromised performance of contract requirements. |
| Delays compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite the use of Client’s resources. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were not effective and not responsive. |
Section III (Cont’d)
Item
FACTORS/RATINGS
| Excellent |
| Good |
| Fair |
| Poor |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Not Applicable |
Quality of Work
| 1 |
| Overall skill level & technical competence of A-E’s personnel |
| 2 |
| Ability to identify risk factors and alternatives for alleviating risk |
| 3 |
| Ability to identify and solve problems expeditiously |
| 4 |
| Overall quality of delivered products |
Cost Control
| 5 |
| Ability to control contract cost (if the contract experienced an overrun, please comment in the Narrative Summary) |
| 6 |
| Ability to search for and apply cost efficient practices |
| 7 |
| Ability to provide accurate and complete cost estimates |
Compliance with Performance Schedules
| 8 |
| Ability to complete major tasks or key project milestones on schedule |
| 9 |
| Ability to provide timely reports and documentation submittals |
Management Effectiveness
| 10 |
| Ability to effectively coordinate, integrate & manage subcontractors |
| 11 |
| Ability of management team to show innovation and a proactive approach to problem identification and resolution |
| 12 |
| Ability to effectively interface with the Customer’s staff |
| 13 |
| Ability to respond to customer changes |
| 14 |
| Ability to meet project requirements |
| 15 |
| Ability to effectively communicate pertinent issues throughout the contract |
Customer Satisfaction
| 16 |
| How would you rate the A-E’s overall management performance on this contract |
| 17 |
| How would you rate the A-E’s overall technical performance on this contract |
| 18 |
| Would you use this A-E again? (If “No”, please comment in the Narrative Summary) |
| YES |
| No |
Section III (Cont’d)
NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to elaborate on the specifics of the rating and to explain additional information not included above)
| Item |
| Comments |
PAST PERFORMANCE TRANSMITTAL LETTER - SAMPLE
This acquisition is for is for Architect-Engineering (A-E) Professional Environmental Restoration and Compliance Services at all NASA Centers, component facilities, and other NASA responsible assets. This agencywide multiple award contract will provide a highly flexible contracting vehicle for participating Centers. Combined Synopsis number 80KSC022R0015.
A-E CONTRACTOR LETTER: FORMAT
[Date of Letter] [Name and Address of A-E’s Customer] Attention: [Name and Designation of Customer Evaluator]
Dear [Customer Contact Name]:
We are currently responding to the NASA, Kennedy Space Center Request synopsis 80KSC022R0015. NASA is requesting that customers of entities responding to the synopsis participate in the evaluation process. We have included our project for your company/agency as a past performance reference. An Architect-Engineer Past Performance Report is enclosed. We respectfully request that you complete Sections II and III of the enclosed evaluation and return the signed, completed questionnaire to the Contracting Officer at either address listed below. Your completed questionnaire must arrive no later than 2:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on November 29, 2022.
| Name: | Daniel Heggen | ||
| Email Address: | daniel.j.heggen@nasa.gov | ||
| Mailing Address: | NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center | ||
| Procurement Office Code: OP-CS |
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899
And
| Name: | Randall A. Gumke | |||
| Email Address: | randall.a.gumke@nasa.gov | |||
| Mailing Address: | NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center | |||
| Procurement Office Code: OP-CS | ||||
| Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 |
To maintain the integrity of this process, DO NOT return the Past Performance Report to us. Return it to the email or mailing address listed above.
Please direct any questions to the Contracting Officer, Daniel Heggen at daniel.j.heggen@nasa.gov.
Sincerely, [Name of Signer] [Designation of Signer]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .