Attachment 9 - NCGASS Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

This Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is structured for a federal procurement (e.g., FAR Part 15). It covers real-world program integration, operation, maintenance, sustainment, and requirements.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

Project Title:

Contractor Name:

SECTION I: CONTRACT DATA

(To be completed by the Reference Evaluator)

· Contract Number / Task Order: ________________________________________

· Contract Type (FFP, CPFF, etc.): ______________________________________

· Complexity: [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low

· Key Scope Elements: (e.g., Program Management, Operations, Maintenance, and sustainment…)

SECTION II: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In the table 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.

*Note to Evaluators: When completing this questionnaire, please evaluate each individual performance area using the standard CPARS adjectival rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory).

Once all individual evaluation areas have been scored, an Overall Performance Rating will be generated based on the culmination of these individual scores. This overall adjectival rating will then be directly equated to a final Confidence Rating, which the Government will use to assess the likelihood of successful performance on the current requirement.

Please refer to the matrix below to see how the Overall CPARS Rating translates into the Final Confidence Rating:

Low Confidence, at least 40% - Some Confidence, at least 50% - High Confidence, at least 60% - Very High Confidence

Technical Integration, Resolution, & Mission Readiness: Assess the contractor’s performance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards).

Schedule: Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, reports, and administrative requirements (e.g. efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule).

Business Relations/Management: Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract or order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

Management Responsiveness. Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), or other UCAs), the Contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction. Consider the Contractor's responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract or order requirements. Assess the contractor's performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, personnel.

Cost: Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost.* *Cost Control – not required for Firm Fixed Price (FFP). If FFP please extend N/A in the comments box.

Small Business: FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the Small Business Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for small business to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract.* *Not required for Small Businesses.

In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If not, please explain in the comments section below.)

Comments:

SECTION III: EVALUATOR COMMENTS

1. Mission Impact: Describe a specific instance where the contractor prevented mission failure or performed an emergency restoration.

· Comments: ___________________________________________________________

2. Sustainment Innovation: Did the contractor implement any "Product Improvement Programs" (PIP) or upgrades that extended the life of the system or reduced O&M costs?

· Comments: ___________________________________________________________

3. Overall Recommendation: Would you award this contractor another mission-critical contract?

· Yes / [ ] No (If No, please explain): ___________________________

SECTION IV: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

· Name/Title: _________________________________________________________

· Agency: ____________________________________________________________

· Phone/Email: ________________________________________________________ Submission: Please return this form directly to the Contracting Officer at jame.chang@noaa.gov