Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionaire.docx
DOCX document 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 86 MXG C-130 Wash & Lube Services Contract II
- Solicitation number
- FA561325Q0001
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) related to a federal contract opportunity for 86th MXG C-130 Aircraft Wash & Lube Services II at Ramstein Air Base (AB).
The PPQ requests information from respondents on the contractor's past performance, including whether the contractor met required service turnaround times, demonstrated the ability to comply with technical orders, provide qualified personnel, retain personnel, and communicate and resolve technical problems. Respondents are asked to rate the contractor's overall performance and indicate if the contractor was ever issued a cure or show cause notice, damaged government property, or is rated in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The PPQ also asks if the respondent would award another contract to this contractor.
The related federal contract opportunity is Solicitation No. FA561325Q0001 for the 86 MXG C-130 Wash & Lube Services Contract II. The contract is being issued by the Department of the Air Force United States Air Forces in Europe - Air Forces Africa. A site visit will be held on October 23, 2024 for interested parties to coordinate base access.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| AMENDED_Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers 07 Nov 2024.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - DD 254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Pricing Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| Combo.docx | DOCX document |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
This PPQ is for the solicitation (No. FA561325Q0001) of 86th MXG C-130 Aircraft Wash & Lube Services II at Ramstein Air Base (AB).
A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Contractor’s Name
Contractor’s Address
Contractor’s Telephone # (add country code)
Contractor’s Email Address
Contractor’s Point of Contact (POC)
Project Title or Brief Description of Work
Contract Number
Contract Amount
Contract Period or Dates of Performance
Contract Place of Performance
Contractor performed as the Prime Contractor Sub-Contractor Key Personnel.
To be completed by the respondent and returned directly to the Contracting Office.
Respondent’s Name
Respondent’s Title
Respondent’s Address
Respondent’s Telephone # (add country code)
Respondent’s Email Address
C. RETURN COMPLETED SURVEY FORM PRIOR TO OFFER DUE DATE OF 2 MARCH 2020:
Ms. Iris Laub at iris.laub.de@us.af.mil or TSgt Carleen Clinger at carleen.clinger@us.af.mil Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix below and please provide a narrative explanation for any rating given.
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| Exceptional |
| Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Neutral |
| Performance meets contractual requirements with many exceeded to your organization’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Performance meets contractual requirements with some exceeded to your organization’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| 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 were satisfactory. |
| 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 or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.
Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.
| The contractor: |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| 1. |
| Has the offeror met required service turnaround times? |
| 2. |
| Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to comply with the applicable technical orders required to render services in a timely fashion? |
| 3. |
| Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to provide qualified personnel (to include security and proper skill levels) |
| 4. |
| Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to retain qualified personnel? |
| 5. |
| Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to communicate and resolve technical problems timely and thoroughly? |
| 6. |
| How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? |
| 7. |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? |
If yes, explain outcome in “other remarks.”
YES / NO
| 8. |
| Did the contractor ever damage an aircraft or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)? |
If yes, explain the type(s) of damage and what resulted from the damage in “other remarks.”
YES / NO
| 9. |
| For US Government contracts only: Is the contractor rated in CPARS? |
| YES / NO |
| 10. |
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “remarks.” |
| YES / NO |
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Other Remarks:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .