Attachment 13 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Buildings 1383 and 1384 Inside Plant (ISP) Replacement and Building 123 Fiber Optic Work
- Solicitation number
- FA488725R0008
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) for a federal contract opportunity related to the Department of the Air Force solicitation FA488725R0008. The solicitation is for Buildings 1383 and 1384 Inside Plant (ISP) Replacement and Building 123 Fiber Optic Work at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, with a total project value between $500,000 and $1,000,000. This is an SBA Certified Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) set-aside procurement, requiring contractors to be SBA certified prior to award and actively registered in SAM.
Key dates include a site visit scheduled for Thursday, 26 June 2025 at 0800 MST, with RFIs due by 1100 MST on 3 July 2025, and proposals due electronically by 1200 MST on 21 July 2025. The questionnaire provides a detailed template for past performance evaluation, allowing clients to rate contractors on quality, schedule, cost control, management, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance using adjective ratings from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. The government reserves the right to verify all information and cancel the solicitation at any time, with no obligation to reimburse offerors for costs.
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
Reference Solicitation FA488725R0008 on SAM.GOV
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
| 1. Contractor Information | |
| Firm Name: | CAGE Code: |
| Address: | UEI Number: |
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:
2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):
Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date - Original (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):
Explain Differences:
| 4. Project Description: | |||
| Complexity of Work | High | Med | Routine |
How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)
5. Client Information Name: Title:
Phone Number: Email Address:
6. Describe the client’s role in the project:
7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
8. Client’s Signature:
NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE CONTRACTING SPECIALIST @ kelli.mcdonald@us.af.mil & CONTRACTING OFFICER @ jennifer.kirsch.1@us.af.mil. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO |
significant weaknesses identified.
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. |
| A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not |
fully implemented.
To justify a Marginal rating, identify a significant event that occurred from which the Contractor had trouble overcoming and that impacted the Government/Owner.
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that occurred from which the contractor had trouble overcoming and that impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. |
(N) Not Applicable
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor |
negative.
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING THAT BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.
1. 1. QUALITY
| How would you rate the overall quality of the service received? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the overall quality rating:
2. SCHEDULE
| How would you rate the firm’s ability to stay on schedule? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the schedule rating:
3. COST CONTROL
| How would you rate the firm’s ability to control costs? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the cost control rating:
4. MANAGEMENT
| How would you rate the firm’s management? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the management rating:
5. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING
| How would you rate the firm’s ability to utilize small businesses (If Applicable)? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the small business subcontracting rating:
6. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
| How would you rate the firm’s regulatory compliance? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide comments to justify the regulatory compliance rating:
7. RECOMMENDATION
Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Comments:
Yes
No
If you have additional comments/information not covered in the above spaces, please add them here. (please attach additional pages if necessary):
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .