Attachment 1 PPQ.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- West Regional Architect - Engineer Services (WRAES) - Synopsis Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80AFRC23R0024
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 80AFRC23R0024_Amendment02.pdf | ||
| 80AFRC23R0024_Amendment01.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 WRAES Provisions.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 PWS - Western Regional Multiple Award A-E -Redacted.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - AFRC Architect-Engineer Contractor Performance Evaluation Standards.pdf | ||
| 80AFRC23R0024 Synopsis.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 SF330.pdf | ||
| Exhibit B - NASA-STD-10001 BIM 2020.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENT 1
SYNOPSIS NUMBER: 80AFRC23R0024
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS AND RATING GUIDELINES
This evaluation is to be completed as indicated below. The A-E firm must provide one evaluation for each past performance customer contact identified in SF 330, Section F. This package consists of the following:
| Section | Description | Who Completes |
| Section I | Basic Contract Information | A-E firm |
| 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 firm. Customer Evaluators must send evaluations directly to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. The Customer Evaluator must submit their completed questionnaire to the address listed below, to arrive no later than 2:00 pm Pacific Time (PT) on May 26, 2023.
| Contract Specialist: | Jamill Hayes |
| Email Address: | jamill.m.hayes@nasa.gov |
and
| Contracting Officer: | Jenny Staggs | ||
| Email Address: | jenny.y.staggs@nasa.gov |
Section I To be completed by the A-E firm submitting a SF 330 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 Subcontractor):
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 Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services for design and related services in support of general construction, alteration, modification, maintenance and repair, new construction of buildings, facilities and real property for the NASA Western Regional Area of Operations.
The NASA Western Regional Area of operations includes the Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and the Ames Research Center (ARC) specifically; with (optional) back-up capacity in support of other NASA Centers and Federal Tenants at NASA facilities including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA; Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in Fort Irwin, CA; Edwards Air Force Base, CA and the NASA launch alliance at the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. This regional multiple award contract will provide a highly flexible contracting vehicle for participating Centers. Combined Synopsis Number: 80AFRC23R0024.
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, Armstrong Flight Research Center Synopsis 80AFRC23R0024. 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 both addresses listed below. Your completed questionnaire must arrive no later than 2:00 pm Pacific Time (PT) on May 26, 2023.
| Contract Specialist: | Jamill Hayes |
| Email Address: | jamill.m.hayes@nasa.gov |
and
| Contracting Officer: | Jenny Staggs |
| Email Address: | jenny.y.staggs@nasa.gov |
In order to maintain the integrity of this process, DO NOT return the Past Performance Report to us. Return it to the email addresses listed above. Please direct any questions to the Contracting Officer, Jenny Staggs, at (661) 276-7029 or via e-mail.
Sincerely, [Name of Signer] [Designation of Signer]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .