Attachment 29 Past Performance Evaluation Survey 6-15-2026.docx
DOCX document 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- WJHTC Armed Security Guard Services
- Solicitation number
- 692M15-25-R-00012
About this file
This is a Past Performance Evaluation Survey form for the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) Armed Security Guard Services contract competition (692M15-25-R-00012). The survey is designed to collect objective performance feedback from references on offerors' past work and is mandatory for evaluation purposes.
Offerors must distribute completed survey forms to relevant project references—government contracting officers, contracting officers' representatives, or project managers for federal contracts, and equivalent personnel for state and municipal references—for work performed within five years of the solicitation's closing date. Reference responses must be submitted directly via email to sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov by 4:00 PM Eastern Time on October 29, 2026, from the reference's official government email system with the subject line "WJTHC armed Security Guards Past Performance Evaluation Survey Submission for [Offeror Name]." The survey evaluates performance across six primary categories: Quality of Service (6 subcategories), Timeliness of Performance (3 subcategories), Cost Control (3 subcategories), Program Management (4 subcategories), Customer Relationship (6 subcategories), and Overall Customer Satisfaction (2 yes/no questions). Raters assign scores using a five-tier scale—Exceptional (E), Very Good (VG), Satisfactory (S), Marginal (M), and Unsatisfactory (U)—with detailed rating guidelines provided. Ratings of Exceptional and Unsatisfactory require supporting commentary on a designated comments page. The survey serves as a critical evaluation tool for this Total 8(a) set-aside competition using best value tradeoff procedures.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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
692M15-25-R-00012 WJHTC Armed Security Guards 15 June 2026
Attachment 29 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS SENDING REFERENCE SURVEY FORMS:
Part I must be completed by the Offeror (the firm requesting the reference) prior to issuing the surveys. The Offeror must send the surveys for relevant projects with performance that was ongoing or completed within five (5) years of the SIR closing date. The Offeror must send the surveys to the individuals who will provide the reference. For Government contracts, send to the Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), or Project Manager. For state and municipal references, send to personnel with duties similar to those for Government contracts. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to follow-up and encourage references to submit the survey. The completed survey must be submitted via e-mail directly from the person providing the reference, not from the Offeror as part of the Offeror’s proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSON PROVIDING REFERENCE:
In order to assess potential vendors under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) William J. Hughes Technical Center Armed Security Guards competition, the FAA Contracting Office is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror. As a reference for work performed by the firm identified in Part I of this survey, your candid response will assist in the evaluation process. Please complete Part II of the survey as thoroughly as possible and submit to sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 29 October 2026. Please indicate in the subject line in the submission e-mail: WJTHC armed Security Guards Past Performance Evaluation Survey Submission for <Company Name> and the message must originate from the reference’s government (federal, state, municipal) e-mail system.
In addition to this survey, you may receive a follow-up phone call or e-mail to confirm or clarify information. This is a major FAA acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding this survey or require assistance, please submit inquiries to sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov.
Sincerely, Sarah McCarty Contracting Officer Federal Aviation Administration
692M15-25-R-00012 WJHTC Armed Security Guards 15 June 2026
Attachment 29 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY
PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR REQUESTING THE REFERENCE)
A. OFFEROR INFORMATION
Offeror Name:
Offeror Address:
B. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATIONOFFEROR COMPLETE
Performing Contractor Name (if other than Offeror Name above):
Performing Contractor Address (if other than Offeror Name above):
Project Title:
Contract Number:
Agency/Customer:
Agency/Customer POC Name:
Agency/Customer POC Email:
Contract/Order/Subcontract/Other:
PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONDENT)
Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Provide commentary to support all Outstanding and Unsatisfactory ratings on the last page.
Assign each area a rating of Outstanding (O), Good (G), Satisfactory (S), and Unsatisfactory (U). Use the attached Rating Guidelines which is provided as Exhibit 1 as guidance in making these evaluations. Enter the appropriate rating for each Category number.
A. IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT
Name:
Title:
Phone:
Address:
Email:
B. EVALUATION
QUALITY OF SERVICE:
| # |
| Category |
| Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Compliance with contract requirements |
| 2 |
| Accuracy of reports |
| 3 |
| Level of knowledge, experience, and training of personnel |
| 4 |
| Capability of personnel to perform required services |
| 5 |
| Effectiveness of personnel in performing required services |
| 6 |
| Overall quality of service |
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
| # |
| Category |
| Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Reliability |
| 2 |
| Responsive to technical direction |
| 3 |
| Meets contract delivery schedules and/or task deadlines |
COST CONTROL:
| # |
| Category |
| Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Current, accurate and complete billings |
| 2 |
| Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals |
| 3 |
| Cost effectiveness |
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
| # |
| Category |
| Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Adequate and complete management plan |
| 2 |
| Specific management team dedicated to this project |
| 3 |
| Indications that the provided team had experience in subcontractor management and surveillance |
| 4 |
| Process, or metrics, for the evaluation of their own overall management performance |
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP:
| # |
| Category |
| Rating |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1 |
| Effective management, including subcontracts |
| 2 |
| Reasonable/cooperative behavior |
| 3 |
| Responsive to contract requirements |
| 4 |
| Notification of problems |
| 5 |
| Flexibility |
| 6 |
| Proactive vs. reactive |
OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| # |
| Category |
| Response |
| Yes |
| No |
| 1 |
| The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction: |
a. Contractor Management Personnel
b. Contractor Onsite Facility Personnel
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, including support for all Outstanding and Unsatisfactory ratings:
Exhibit 1: Rating Guidelines Use the following definitions in your assessment of contractor performance.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| Exceptional (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, there must have been multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there must have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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 was effective. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, there must have been a significant event that was a benefit to the Government. There must have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| Performance meets 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. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there must have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There must have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| Marginal (M) |
| 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 Marginal performance, there must have been a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming that impacted the Government. A |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance does not meet one or more contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, there must have been multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming that impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .