Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) - AF COOL.docx
DOCX document 49 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY27_UPDATED_DRAFT_Solicitation_Purchase Agents for Air Force Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (AFCOOL)
- Solicitation number
- FY27_Maxwell_AFB_AFCOOL
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template designed for evaluating contractor performance on the Air Force COOL (Credentialing Opportunities On-Line) Purchase Agents contract (Solicitation FA330027R0001). The questionnaire must be completed by references for each contract the offeror wants the government to consider and submitted directly to Samantha Millington, Contract Specialist, and Mark Restad, Contracting Officer, by the closing date of October 8, 2026, at 12:00 PM CST. The form requests general contract information including contractor name, project title, contract number, award amount, and final amount, along with respondent details and role clarification (prime contractor, subcontractor, or joint venture).
The questionnaire employs a six-point performance rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, Neutral/Not Applicable) across four primary evaluation categories: Technical Expertise and Project Supervision (four criteria), Home Office/On-Site/Government Interaction (four criteria), Service Quality (four criteria), and Schedule (two criteria). Additional evaluation areas address subcontractor payment claims, cure or show cause notices, and overall contractor suitability for future awards. Respondents must provide narrative explanations for any Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings and complete an overall assessment on a 1-6 scale. The form also includes yes/no questions regarding subcontractor claims, government notices, and willingness to award future contracts, with space for detailed remarks throughout.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
Solicitation – FA330027R0001
Attachment 3
PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Offerors shall forward this attachment for completion to each contract reference the offeror wants the government to consider. Offerors shall ensure each respondent submits a completed questionnaire directly to Samantha Millington, Contract Specialist (CS), samantha.millington.1@us.af.mil and Mark Restad, Contracting Officer (CO), mark.restad.1@us.af.mil by the closing date of the RFP. Offerors are encouraged to have respondents submit the information prior to the closing date 12:00PM CST, 08 Oct 2026.
| Contractor’s Name: | Project Title: | Contract Number Assigned to the Contractor: |
| Contract Award Amount: $ | Contract Final Amount: $ |
* Note: If offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last 3 years, please complete separate evaluation forms for those contracts as well.
B. AGENCY INFORMATION:
| Name of Respondent: | Title: | |
| Address: | Telephone Number: |
Email Address:
C. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION:
Respondent shall include information below regarding the work performed. Use the Confident Rating table to complete this section.
Were you the prime contractor? Subcontractor? Joint Venture?
D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, VG, S, M, U, and N) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF M or U.
E
VG
S
M
U
N
Exceptional
Very Good
Satisfactory
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
Neutral/Not Applicable
Performance meets contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’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 the Government’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.
| Technical Expertise and Project Supervision |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| 1 |
| Contractor provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements. |
| 2 |
| Contractor hired and retained field workers with appropriate technical skills and training commensurate with those required for successful project completion. |
| 3 |
| Contractor delegated authority to contract managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements. Contract manager’s role was clear. |
| 4 |
| Provided on-site contract manager/supervisor at all times, or as otherwise required by the specific contract. |
Home Office/On-Site/Government Interaction
| 5 |
| Identified risks/problems as they occurred and offered constructive and/or viable solution/alternatives. |
| 6 |
| Contractor was responsive and reasonable to contract changes from the standpoint of timeliness, suggested solutions, and price. |
| 7 |
| Contractor displayed a cooperative attitude with company/government personnel before and after award. |
| 8 |
| Contractor’s on-site contract manager/supervisor displayed initiative to resolve problems on-site. |
Service Quality
| 9 |
| Contractor provided and followed effective quality control plan and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements. |
| 10 |
| Contractor’s emphasis on delivering a quality service was apparent in day-to-day operations. |
| 11 |
| Contractor corrected deficiencies in a timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures. |
| 12 |
| Contractor maintained a quality workforce and subcontractors through project completion. |
Schedule
| 13 |
| Developed realistic progress schedules and met established project milestones. |
| 14 |
| Contractor provided the required Reports/Documentation as required in the contract. |
Other
Were there any claims by subcontractors/suppliers for non- payment. If yes, please explain outcome in “Remarks”
| YES |
| NO |
Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in "Remarks."
| YES |
| NO |
Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in "Remarks."
| YES |
| NO |
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
| Overall, on the scale of 1 – 6, how would you rate the contractor being surveyed |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
Remarks____________________________________________________________________________
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .