Attachment 10 Past Performance Questionnaire 14 Sept 2022.pdf

Controlled Unclassified Information

When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 1 of 13

The Innovation and Prototyping Delta of the United States Space Force is in the process of competitively selecting a source for the Space Test Experiment Platform (STEP) 2.0 program. The STEP 2.0 program objective is to acquire spacecraft in the 12U CubeSAT to ESPA class form factor, integration of DoD payloads, integration onto a launch vehicle (provided under a different contract), and to provide a minimum of 365 days of on-orbit support.

One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offerors' past performance on contracts or other work efforts which reflect the offeror's ability to perform on the proposed effort. We depend on information received from organizations such as yours, which have had first-hand experience with the offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts or work efforts.

Our areas of interest regarding the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. In order to meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than DATED TBD. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of negotiations.

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and e-mailed to tianna.seaman@spaceforce.mil or george.keane@spaceforce.mil . Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official source selection records.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this Source Selection.

GEORGE J. KEANE JR

Contracting Officer

USSF SZK-IK

1 Atch

Past Performance Questionnaire http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:tianna.seaman@spaceforce.mil mailto:george.keane@spaceforce.mil

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 2 of 13

Section 1: Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract Number:

D. Contract Type (e.g., FFP, FPIF, CPIF, CPFF, etc.):

E. Program Title:

F. Brief Program Description:

G. Program Phase (e.g., Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)):

H. Period of Performance

1. Original Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date through

2. Current Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date through

3. Reason for difference (if applicable):

I. Contract Dollar Value

1. Original maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

3. Reasons for difference between original and current contract dollar value (if applicable):

J. Was this a competitively awarded contract? No

K. Contractor’s Role: Prime Contractor

Yes

Subcontractor

Note: If offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last three (3) years, please complete separate Past Performance Questionnaire forms for those contracts as well.

Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

Key Personnel http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 3 of 13

C. Geographic description of work performed under this contract (i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other

Commands):

Section 3: Respondent Identification

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

C. Respondent’s phone/e-mail address:

D. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:

E. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Spacecraft Identification

A. What was your spacecraft’s model name?

B. What was your size of your satellite?

C. How many payloads were integrated on your spacecraft?

D. When did your spacecraft fly? through

E. Did your spacecraft fly in LEO or GEO ?

Section 5: Performance Information

In the table below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question. Provide supporting information for each response in the space provided. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. The performance rating scale is defined as follows:

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.

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 13

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.

Spacecraft Management: E V S M U N/A

1. How well was the contractor able to effectively integrate cost and schedule to provide a realistic picture of contract work progress?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2. How well did the contractor control cost and schedule?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

3. How well did the contractor manage relationships with suppliers, payload developers, the program office, and operations providers?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

4. How well did the contractor coordinate facility resources to maintain expected progress on multiple competing projects?

Subjects to be evaluated include:

Space Craft Management Payload Accommodation Systems Engineering Ground Segment and Satellite Operations Small Business Compliance

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 5 of 13

Spacecraft Management: E V S M U N/A

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

5. How well did the contractor manage personnel resources to maintain expected progress on multiple competing projects?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

6. How well did the contractor handle resource contention or other conflicts arising from concurrent competing projects?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

7. How well did the contractor’s facilities satisfy security requirements?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

8. How well did the contractor and their personnel implement and maintain security procedures?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

9. How well did the contractor maintain and support program protection requirements?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Payload Accommodation: E V S M U N/A

1. How well did the contractor’s design satisfy payload requirements?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 6 of 13

Payload Accommodation: E V S M U N/A

2. How well did the contractor perform integration of the spacecraft (or spacecraft-related subsystem)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

3. How well did the contractor conduct and present complex engineering technical challenges and or tradeoffs?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

4. How well did the contractor perform integration of payloads onto the spacecraft?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

5. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain hardware fabrication processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

6. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain software development processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

7. How well did the contractor’s flight control software work with the identified ground operations system?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

8. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain test planning and execution processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 7 of 13

Payload Accommodation: E V S M U N/A

9. How well did the contractor manage spacecraft encryption and related cyber security requirements?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Systems Engineering: E V S M U N/A

1. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain systems engineering processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2. How well did the contractor exchange information with external agencies to define an interface between two separate systems, subsystems, or components?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

3. How well did the contractor define mechanical, electrical, data exchange and/or thermal interfaces?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

4. What was the overall quality of the contractor’s interface documentation (or the contractor’s portion of the documentation) and requirements verification process?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

5. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain quality assurance processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 13

Systems Engineering: E V S M U N/A

6. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain configuration management processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

7. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain problem reporting and resolution processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

8. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain risk management processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

9. How well did the contractor develop interface accommodate the payload and other external interface requirements at integration?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

10. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain testing processes?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

11. How well did the contractor support space vehicle to launch vehicle integration activities?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 9 of 13

Systems Engineering: E V S M U N/A

12. How well did the contractor satisfy systems, ground, flight, and range safety requirements (to include preparing the Missile System Prelaunch Safety Package

(MSPSP)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

13. How well did the contractor implement lessons learned to reduce non-recurring tasks in space vehicle builds?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Ground Segment and Satellite Operations: All the ground-based elements of a spacecraft system used by operators and support personnel, to include facilities, equipment, software, utilities, and infrastructure necessary to support management of the spacecraft, telemetry, tracking, and control, distribution of payload data. Primary elements consist of ground stations, mission control centers, ground networks, remote terminals and spacecraft integration and test facilities.

E V S M U N/A

1. Which organization conducted satellite operations? Contactor ☐

Sub-contractor ☐

Government ☐ Other_________________

2. Did the contractor use their own ground segment or contract with another ground station for operations?

Contractor Owned ☐

Sub-Contracted ☐

Govt Owned ☐ Other__________________

3. If the contractor transitioned operations to another organization/contractor, how well did the contractor perform handing off operations to the other organization/contractor after Launch and Early Orbit Period (LEOP)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

4. How well did the contractor define, implement, and maintain the ground segment to support satellite operations?

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 10 of 13

Ground Segment and Satellite Operations: All the ground-based elements of a spacecraft system used by operators and support personnel, to include facilities, equipment, software, utilities, and infrastructure necessary to support management of the spacecraft, telemetry, tracking, and control, distribution of payload data. Primary elements consist of ground stations, mission control centers, ground networks, remote terminals and spacecraft integration and test facilities.

E V S M U N/A

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

5. How well did the contractor define, develop, and implement the mission operational processes and procedures (Spacecraft TT&C)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

6. How well did the contractor perform telemetry, tracking, command (TT&C) and trending activities post-launch?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

7. How well did the contractor perform ground segment anomaly identification and resolution activities?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

8. How well did the contractor perform on-orbit anomaly identification and resolution activities?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

9. Did the contractor distribute payload data in a timely manner?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 11 of 13

Ground Segment and Satellite Operations: All the ground-based elements of a spacecraft system used by operators and support personnel, to include facilities, equipment, software, utilities, and infrastructure necessary to support management of the spacecraft, telemetry, tracking, and control, distribution of payload data. Primary elements consist of ground stations, mission control centers, ground networks, remote terminals and spacecraft integration and test facilities.

E V S M U N/A

10. Did the contractor provide timely inputs required for obtaining spectrum approval (NTIA and/or FCC)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

11. How well did the contractor handle providing inputs into the Risk

Management Framework (RMF) process?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

12. How well did the contractor plan and perform vehicle decommissioning and mission at the end-of-life?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Section 6: Small Business Compliance

IF THIS WAS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT:

Did this contract include FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

Yes No

If yes, did the contractor comply with the clause? Please explain.

Did this contract include FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns?

Yes No

If yes, did the contractor comply with the clause? Please explain.

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 12 of 13

Section 7: General Comment

If given a choice, would you work with this contractor again if:

1. Technical performance was the most important consideration? Yes No

2. Cost control was the most important consideration? Yes No

3. Schedule control was the most important consideration? Yes No

4. If cooperation and trust were the most important consideration? Yes No

REMARKS:

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Respondent’s Signature Block Date

Attachment 13: Past Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 13 of 13

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

PRIMARY SECONDARY

Tianna L. Seaman George J. Keane Jr.

Contract Specialist (CS) Contracting Officer (CO)

Tianna.seaman@spaceforce.mil George.keane@spaceforce.mil

SSC SZK-IK SSC SZK-IK

(253) 777-8479 (505) 853-7664 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:Tianna.seaman@spaceforce.mil mailto:George.keane@spaceforce.mil