Attachment 2 OPPD_MOTT.docx

N00244-26-R-3104 Mobile Ordnance Training Team (MOTT)

OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

When filled in, this document is Source Selection Sensitive Information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Offerors shall submit up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts or task orders performed within the last (3) years that demonstrate experience with ordnance training, explosives safety, or similar technical training services

SECTION 1: OFFEROR INFORMATION

A. Company Name:

B. CAGE Code / UEI:

C. Address:

D. Point of Contact (POC):

E. POC Email / Phone:

SECTION 2: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Solicitation Number:

B. Contractor:

C. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to:

D. Contract number:

E. Contract type:

F. Was this a competitive acquisition? Yes __ No __ G. Period of performance:

H. Initial contract cost:

I. Current/final contract cost:

J. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

K. Description of service provided:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name:

B. Evaluator's title:

C. Evaluator’s organization or Agency:

D. Evaluator's phone number/email address:

E. Additional Point of Contact and phone number: _____________________________________________

SECTION 3: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Scope (training, curriculum development, ordnance handling)

Complexity (technical difficulty, multi-site support, concurrent tasks)

Magnitude (dollar value, number of personnel, training throughput)

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Provide a detailed description (no more than 1–2 paragraphs) addressing:

· Type of training provided (e.g., ordnance handling, explosives safety, weapons systems)

· Curriculum development and updates

· Instructor qualifications and staffing approach

· Use of training aids, simulators, or specialized equipment

· Number of personnel supported / students trained

· Locations supported (CONUS/OCONUS if applicable)

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Would you have any reservation about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Yes__No___ If yes, provide explanation: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. The scale is defined as follows:

RISK RATING

A – The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, highly effective. Performance of completed contracts either was consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

B - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the offeror were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance over completed contracts either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

C - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) met contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by, or proposed to be taken by, the contractor were, or are expected to be, for the most part effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance.

D - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet some contractual requirements. The assessed prior performance reflected some serious problems for which the contractor either failed to identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be implemented were, or are expected to be, only partially effective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of mediocre quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance might be difficult to achieve or that it can occur only with increased levels of government management and oversight.

F - The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contract(s) did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery did not occur with the period of performance. The assessed prior performance reflected serious problem(s) for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions or for which corrective actions, implemented, or proposed to be implemented, were, or are expected to be, mostly ineffective. Performance over completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance will not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of government management and oversight.

Neutral - The offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. There is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance based on the offeror’s past performance record.

Program Management

P1. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

P2. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

P3. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

P4. Ability to understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements

P5. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

P6. Quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts

P7. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts

P8. Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

P9. Contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support.

Cost Performance C1 Accuracy in forecasting contract costs

C2 Ability to meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs

C3 Ability to alert Government of unforeseen costs before they occur

C4 Sufficiency and timeliness of cost reporting

C5 Contractor’s demonstrated compliance with a subcontracting plan

Please email this completed questionnaire to Contract Specialist Naima Yelda at naima.yelda.civ@us.navy.mil and Contract Specialist Noni Arcilla at noni.p.arcilla.civ@us.navy.mil

The subject line of the emailed OPPD must read “N00244-26-R-3104 MOTT OPPD”.

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance.