Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)_2 April 2025.docx

Controlled Unclassified Information

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Local Drayage Solicitation The 52nd Contracting Squadron of the Air Force USAFE is in the process of competitively selecting an awardee for a Local Drayage requirement. The awardee will be responsible for providing all personnel, equipment, power tools, all types of licenses and permits, materials, supervision, supplies, services, and transportation necessary to assemble, disassemble, transfer, transport, issue, pick-up, load / unload at Warehouse 166 and deliver Government-owned furnishings as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Spangdahlem Air Base (SAB) (on-base and off-base units, Warehouse to Warehouse moves, and GSUs).

One of the considerations in offer 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. To meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than 10 calendar days after your receipt of this letter. 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 camille.bowen@us.af.mil and angelo.minisini@us.af.mil. Please contact either of these individuals if you have any questions. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official contract records.

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

Angelo Minisini, CIV, USAF Contracting Officer

1 Attachment :

1. Past Performance Questionnaire

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. Description of work performed:

K. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No

L. Contractor’s Role: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor ☐ Key Personnel

Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of services 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 number / fax number / e-mail address:

D. Respondent’s position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO, etc.):

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

F. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the tables 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.

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.

T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How was the quality of technical system operations & maintenance testing and certification efforts?

T3. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?

T4. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?

P1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

P5. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?

P6. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

P7. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?

P8. How effective was the contractor’s acquisition management?

P9. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?

P10. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?

TP1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel?

TP2. How effective was the contractor in maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts?

E1. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort?

E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?

E3. How effective was employee compensation towards quality of work?

C1. How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs?

C2. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?

C3. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?

Government Contracts Only: Was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience, or are there any pending terminations?

☐ Yes ☐ Default ☐ Convenience ☐ Pending Terminations ☐ No

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).

SECTION 5: GENERAL COMMENT

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I [ click and select an item ] award to him today given that I had a choice.

REMARKS:

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

[click and pick the date]

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

E-Mail to: 2nd Lt Camille Bowen (camille.bowen@us.af.mil) & Angelo Minisini (angelo.minisini@us.af.mil)

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 8