Attachment 10 PPQ_signed 24Oct2024.pdf
PDF 216 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Test Engineering and Analysis Services (TEAS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9115124R0030
- Issued by
- Department of the Army
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Test Engineering and Analysis Services (TEAS) contract.
The RFP is an 8(a) set-aside requirement competed as a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection. It will result in a Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Cost, and CPFF Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The Period of Performance includes a 30-day contract Phase-in, 11-month base period, and four 1-year option periods. Offerors must submit proposals by 3:00 PM EST on November 26, 2024. The contracting office is the MICC-Theater Support Center. The Past Performance Questionnaire requests information on the offeror's past performance, including compliance, effectiveness of project management, timeliness, cost control, and customer satisfaction. Respondents are asked to provide ratings and rationale across these factors.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 22
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING COMMAND
THEATER SUPPORT CENTER
HQ MISSION & INSTALLATION CONTRACTING COMMAND (MICC)
October 24, 2024
SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal
(RFP) W91151-24-R-0030
Dear Sir/Ma’am, The US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC), Theater Support Center (TSC), is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on the subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on recent and relevant federal, state, or local government contracts as compared to solicitation W91151-24-R- 0030. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.
The prospective Offeror will complete Part I. I respectfully request you complete Part II with BOTH a rating and rationale for the rating.
Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation.
Please complete the enclosure and return to the MICC-TSC Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist herein, no later than five (5) days after receipt of request or by 10:00 AM EDT on November 15, 2024, whichever occurs first. Submit your completed questionnaire to the undersigned, ingrid.v.smith.civ@army.mil and Contract Specialist, avangela.y.ligons-sutton.civ@army.mil.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Any questions may be directed to the undersigned.
Sincerely, Ingrid V. Smith Contracting Officer mailto:ingrid.v.smith.civ@army.mil mailto:avangela.y.ligons-sutton.civ@army.mil
Performance Assessment Questionnaire
Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does and notify the Government Contract Specialist, Avangela Ligons-Sutton via avangela.y.ligons-sutton.civ@army.mil. Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter within the stated timeframe.
Rating Definitions:
Substantial Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The offeror has been highly successfully in performing the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The offeror has successfully performed the required effort.
Limited Confidence: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.
Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions, or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective. The offeror has had little success performing the required effort.
No Confidence: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective. The offeror has not successfully performed the required effort.
PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror competing for the requirement)
A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
Contractor/Company Name/Division:
Address:
Program Identification/Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Type:
Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):
Contract Award Date:
Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:
Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:
Total Contract Value:
B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number:
Address:
E-mail Address:
PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Respondent Point of Contact) *Note: rationale is required for each response.
A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship
Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).
Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.
Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs
Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest
Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence
Rationale: __________________________________________________________
F. Comparison to TEAS scope. Please check if your contract included any (or all) of the following services:
Test planning Software analysis Foreign National /
Media Escorts Coordination, execution, and reporting of test results
Software development Access control monitors
Data collection, entry, and analysis
Data management Program and Project Management
Engineering and technical support
Manpower and Personnel Integration
(MANPRINT)
Flight safety and systems engineering support services
Technical writing and editing
Process automation support
Comments: _________________________________________________________
G. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.
Comments: _________________________________________________________
H. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:
Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?
If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:
Point of Contact (Name): __________________________________________ Telephone Number: ______________________________________________
I. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:
Organization:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number Address:
E-mail Address:
PART III. RETURN INFORMATION
Please return this completed Questionnaire to the Points of Contact identified in the cover letter.
Thank you for your assistance.
| No Confidence_2: | |
| Rationale 1_2: | |
| Rationale 2_2: | |
| Rationale 3_2: | |
| No Confidence_3: | |
| Rationale 1_3: | |
| Rationale 2_3: | |
| Rationale 3_3: | |
| No Confidence_4: | |
| Rationale 1_4: | |
| Rationale 2_4: | |
| Rationale 3_4: | |
| No Confidence_5: | |
| Rationale 1_5: | |
| Rationale 2_5: | |
| Rationale 3_5: | |
| Test planning: | |
| Software analysis: | |
| Software development: | |
| Access control monitors: | |
| Data management: | |
| Engineering and technical support: | |
| Flight safety and systems engineering support servicesProcess automation support: | |
| editing: | |
| Comments 1: | |
| Comments 2: | |
| G General Comments Provide any other relevant performance information: | |
| Comments 1_2: | |
| Comments 2_2: | |
| If yes please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact: | |
| Point of Contact Name: | |
| Rationale 3: | |
| Rationale 2: | |
| Rationale 1: | |
| No Confidence: | |
| 2024-10-24T12:01:45-0400 | |
| SMITH.INGRID.VERONICA.1251897685 |
| Text3: |
| Text4: |
| Text5: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .