Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).pdf

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

SOLICITATION FA442720R0019

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 2.101 & 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACTOR INFO (filled out by Offeror submitting a proposal)

A. Contractor: _________________________

B. Contractor Cage Code: ________________

C. Contract number: ______________________________________

D. Contract type: ______________________________

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________

G. Contract cost: $____________________________ H. Description & Scope of service provided (include estimated annual poundage and/or # of deliveries):

SECTION 2: REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION (filled out by Offeror’s Customer)

A. Reference’s agency name:

B. Reference or agency description (if applicable):

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION (filled out by Offeror’s Customer)

A. Evaluator's name:_____________________________________________________

B. Evaluator's title:______________________________________________________

C. Evaluator's phone/fax number:___________________________________________

D. Length of time (years/months) evaluator worked on subject contract: ____________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION (filled out by offeror’s customer) 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. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

1 EXCEPTIONAL (SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE) - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

2 VERY GOOD (SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE) - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

3 MARGINAL (LIMITED CONFIDENCE) – During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

4 UNSATISFACTORY (NO CONFIDENCE) – During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

Technical Performance 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. Did the contractor comply with generally accepted industry standards and practices for workmanship, sanitation, cleanliness, finish and appearance of items?

2. Did the contractor meet agreed upon pickup/delivery schedules?

3. Did the contractor return and properly package correct quantities of laundry with correct sizes marked on packages?

4. Did the contractor invoice accurately and timely?

5. Was the vehicle(s) the contractor used to transport clean items to your facility clean and conformed to all commercial sanitation standards?

6. Were carts clean and sanitary each time before the vendor loaded them with clean items?

7. Did the vendor routinely exceed the allotted shrinkage factor?

Program Management 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. How effective was overall contract management?

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

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

4. How did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts?

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

2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated 3 (Marginal) or 4 (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary). Feel free to discuss any other pertinent data that you feel is relevant.

3. 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: NARRATIVE SUMMARY (filled out by Offeror’s Customer)

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

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

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Offeror’s Customer: Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire directly to:

Rick Thorp Email: richard.thorp.4@us.af.mil Phone: (707) 816-3899

Vitaliy Kim Email: vitaliy.kim@us.af.mil Phone: (707) 424-7740

60th Contracting Squadron/PKB 350 Hangar Avenue, Building 549 Travis AFB, CA 94535-2632 mailto:richard.thorp.4@us.af.mil mailto:vitaliy.kim@us.af.mil

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION (filled out by Offeror’s Customer)