Attachment C SIR PA 25-080 91625.docx

Federal Aviation Administration

NAS Security and Enterprise Operations (NASEO) Directorate Support Services eFAST Procurement Action #: 25-080 Attachment C: Screening Information Request

September 16, 2025

National Security and Enterprise Operations (NASEO) Directorate Support Services Attachment C Screening Information Request (SIR)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES

ATTACHMENTS

NASEO Directorate Support Services Attachment C:

eFAST PA #: 25-080 iii Attachment C Screening Information Request

Final SIR Release

Questions Due

Proposals Due

Only eFAST MOA holders qualified in the ES Functional Area with eligibility may submit proposals. This requirement must be satisfied by eFAST contractors or eFAST contractor teams operating under a Contractor Teaming Agreement (CTA) or as a MOA holder with Subcontractor Team Agreements (STAs) that individually or collectively are qualified in the ES Functional Area.

C.1.2 SIR Questions and Proposal Submission The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Offerors are instructed to direct all correspondence including questions and concerns about, and proposal submission to the CO on-line via the eFAST Workspace as follows.

Access the MOA Holder Page on the eFAST Workspace at: https://ksn2.faa.gov/contracts/eFAST/eFASTWorkspace/Pages/home.aspx Use the hyperlinks under the “Proposal Submittal” subheading on the right hand side of the MOA Holder Page to submit the respective sections of the proposal or other correspondence.

As a practical matter, Offerors can save and write over multiple drafts. However, only one (1) final submission is permitted. Offerors are advised to finalize proposals and questions well in advance of the due dates and times to ensure timely receipt by the FAA. Once the submit button is greyed out, no further submissions will be accepted. Offerors must further note that there is a 50 Mb file size limitation for each attachment, and files may not be “zipped” using file compression software. Therefore, it is advised to plan your submission accordingly. Multiple submissions containing various parts of the proposal are acceptable. Proposal submission guidance is available in the eFAST Workspace MOA Holder User Training Library wiki.

Offerors are responsible for delivery of their proposal and are advised to retain proof of receipt. Offerors will receive an automated email receipt confirmation from the eFAST Workspace within 24 hours of timely proposal submission.

All questions from offerors regarding any section of the SIR must be submitted in writing to the CO via the eFAST Workspace – the FAA will not accept questions from Offerors regarding the content of the SIR via telephone. Notwithstanding these instructions, the person completing a Past Performance Survey may email inquiries to the Contracting Officer at elizabeth.h.williams@faa.gov 202-267-1155 . Offeror questions must be submitted within five (5) business days after release of the Final SIR (Q&A Period). Correspondence received within this time will be answered in writing and provided to all Offerors before the required date for submittal of the Offeror proposals. The FAA reserves the right to not answer any question received outside of Q&A Period. Furthermore, Offerors must note that the proposal due date set out in Section C.1.1 may not be extended solely on the basis of questions received within or beyond the timeframe noted above.

Submitted proposals must be received by the FAA no later than the date and time set out in Section C.1.1. Proposals not received by the specified date and time will not be evaluated.

C.1.3 Period of Offer Proposals must be binding upon the Offeror for at least one-hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the solicitation closing date.

C.1.4 Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions The FAA is not responsible for and will not pay or reimburse any costs incurred by Offerors in the development or submission of any aspect of their proposals under this SIR. This includes costs associated with any aspect of the proposal activity and any research, studies, or designs carried out for the purpose of incorporation into any part of the proposal. It also includes any costs to acquire or contract for any services or products relating to the offer under this SIR.

C.1.5 Notification of Award and Post Award Meeting with Offerors Written notice of award to unsuccessful Offerors will be provided promptly after contract award. Successful or unsuccessful Offerors must request a post award meeting by providing a written request to the CO within three (3) business days after receiving the notice of award. Post award meetings will be conducted only after completion of source selection activities and award of contract. All Offerors who notify the CO within three (3) business days of receipt of the award notification are entitled to a post award meeting.

C.1.6 Number of Awards & Acquisition Support Contractor The FAA intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation but reserves the right to make multiple awards or to make no award.

During the course of this procurement the FAA may use the services of IT Strategy, a support contractor, in assisting in the evaluations of Offerors’ proposals. They will be providing consultation services to assist government representatives in making evaluation determinations. However, it is the sole responsibility of government representatives to determine, ultimately, which offeror will be the awardee.

During the course of providing consultation services, IT Strategy personnel may be exposed to any proprietary source selection sensitive information included in the proposal. The exclusive responsibility for source selection remains with the Government.

The ITStrategy personnel have signed non-disclosure statements, have been instructed and agree to abide by the handling procedures imposed by the source evaluation process and are aware of source evaluation precautions and penalties. All non-government personnel assisting the FAA on this solicitation are subject to and bound by the same non-disclosure and Organizational Conflict of Interest requirements as are required of FAA personnel.

C.1.7 General Instructions Proposals must be complete and conform to the instructions in this section. An incomplete proposal or a proposal that contains exceptions to the requirements may be excluded from further consideration and award.

Before evaluation, all proposals will be screened for completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. Proposals that do not meet all three (3) initial screening criteria will not be evaluated further. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal. Evaluation of proposals will be performed on the basis of the information contained in the written proposal. The FAA will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified and substantiated in the proposal.

Any data that contains trade secrets, copyright data, or financial information which the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor does not want disclosed other than for evaluation of the proposal must be marked in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.3-16, “Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data (APR 1996).”

Each proposal structure must conform to the requirements provided in Table C-1 below.

Number

Personnel

Performance

1. Past Performance questionnaires are to be submitted directly to the FAA by the Offeror’s references, as instructed in Appendix 1.

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it is counted as two (2) pages. The font used for text must be Times New Roman, size 12. Tables, charts, graphics, and figures must not use fonts smaller than 6 points. Top, bottom, left, and right margins must be no less than 1.0 inch. Page size must be 8.5” x 11”. Pages must be numbered sequentially within each volume. Any items imbedded within a document must be objects only, not links. Submissions must not exceed any page limitations established for the individual volumes. Any submission exceeding a page limitation will only be evaluated up to the established page limitation.

Submission of proposal material must be in the format specified in Table C-1. Offerors must not submit any electronic files that have been “zipped” using file compression software. All file names must specify the volume title, the PA identification number, and the Offeror’s name.

Alternate proposals are not authorized to be submitted in response to this SIR and will not be evaluated. Exceptions in a Final Proposal, if any, to the terms and conditions of this SIR may constitute a deficiency, which could make the offer unacceptable.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications, discussions, or negotiations. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable cost and non-cost terms. If at any time during the evaluation process, the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration. An Offeror eliminated from further consideration for award will be notified in writing by the CO. Offerors are cautioned to consult with the CO before submitting any offer that takes exception to any term or condition of this SIR.

C.1.8 Detailed Instructions The following sections provided detailed instructions for the preparation of each proposal volume.

C.1.8.1 Volume I: Corporate Experience The Offer shall demonstrate their experience and skills meet the full range and scope of the FAA’s requirements set out in Attachment A [Statement of Work]. This includes the Corporate Experience factor that measures the degree to which the Offeror has a proven track record of supporting the day-to-day operations in supporting strengthening of the FAA’s cybersecurity posture and leading to the protection and/or safeguarding the integrity of the NAS systems . The Offeror should have technical expertise which includes independent risk assessments, penetration testing, threat analysis, and engineering services in alignment with the federal cybersecurity standards .

C.1.8.2 Volume II: Key Personnel Offerors must identify the key personnel that will perform work under the contract and provide certified resumes. Each key personnel resume must include the following information:

1. Name of key person.

2. Proposed key role.

3. Labor category.

4. Total years of relevant work experience.

5. Years of relevant experience supporting FAA.

6. Percentage of time committed to perform work under the contract.

7. Experience narrative:

a) Summary of the individual’s relevant experience to the contract.

b) Detailed description of the individual’s experience, skills, knowledge, and accomplishments specifically addressing relevance to the support services described in the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors are advised to provide sufficient substantiation of the experience cited in order to allow independent verification by the Government, if necessary.

8. Employment history.

9. Education, which will be compared to the applicable labor category requirements.

Each resume must be accompanied by a certification that attests to the veracity of the provided information in the resume of the individual. The certification must include a commitment from the individual to perform (as proposed) for at least one (1) year on the contract. The individual must commit to perform contract work, as required, at a minimum of 50 percent of full time – with higher or full time commitments considered more valuable and a strength. Each certification must be individually signed and dated by the proposed key person. Certifications do not count toward the 5-page resume limit.

Offerors must propose the following key personnel positions for the following eFAST Labor Categories with the following responsibilities:

Program Manager

· They’re responsibility for all work efforts performed under the contract.

· They serve as the primary Point of Contact (POC) between the Government’s Program Office, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO) for contract matters.

· They lead the Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with the FAA.

· They must meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements of “Program Manager” as defined in the FAA eFAST MOA 2021.

Security Assessment Lead

· They’re responsible for leading for all technical efforts under the contract.

· They serve as the primary Point of Contract (POC) between the Government’s Program Office, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO) for all security assessments.

· They must attend all Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with the Program Manager are report the status of the contract’s security assessment activities, deliverables and technical matters.

· They ensure the contract meets the requirements in its project plan and schedule for assessment work and output; and is following applicable standards and guidelines.

· Must meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements of “Senior II Scientist/Engineer/Systems Analyst” as defined in the FAA eFAST MOA 2021.

· The Security Assessment Lead, must have within the required years of experience listed in the labor category, five years of management and supervisory experience, responsible for the successful completion of multiple risk and vulnerability

· They must have the required years of experience listed in the labor category including and/or exceeding five (5) years of management and supervisory experience. They also must have experience in the successful completion of multiple risk and vulnerability tasks.

Penetration Testing Lead

· They’re responsible for leading for all penetration testing efforts under the contract.

· They serve as the primary Point of Contract (POC) between the Government’s Program Office, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO) for all penetration testing and issues.

· They must attend all Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with the Program Manager and report the status of the contract’s penetration testing activities and issues.

· They ensure the contract meets the requirements in its project plan and schedule for penetration testing work and output; and is following applicable standards and guidelines.

· Must meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements of “Senior II Scientist/Engineer/Systems Analyst” as defined in the FAA eFAST MOA 2021.

· They must have the required years of experience listed in the labor category including and/or exceeding five (5) years of management and supervisory experience. They also must have experience in the successful completion of multiple penetration testing exercises.

NCO Technical Lead

· They’re responsible for leading the day-to-day technical oversight, coordination, and guidance to contractor personnel which includes performing operational cybersecurity and threat intelligence functions under the contract.

· They’re responsible for leading for all activities supporting the National Cybersecurity Operations (NCO) mission including, threat intelligence, analysis and incident response(s) under the contract.

· They must attend all Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with the Program Manager and report the status of the contract’s NCO operational support and threat intelligence activities, deliverables, and technical issues.

· Must meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements of “Senior II Scientist/Engineer/Systems Analyst” as defined in the FAA eFAST MOA 2021.

· They must have the required years of experience listed in the labor category including and/or exceeding five (5) years of management and supervisory experience. They also must have experience in overseeing operational cybersecurity, threat intelligence teams and/or functions.

Key personnel may be drawn from the Offeror’s staff or members of the Offeror’s team if teaming arrangements are proposed. Certified resumes and letters of commitment from individuals not currently on staff are acceptable. The following restrictions apply:

1. Key personnel must meet the qualifications of the labor categories for which they are proposed.

2. Only one key person may be submitted per key labor category.

C.1.8.3 Volume III: Past Performance Using the Past Performance Summary, the Offeror must cite and describe three (3) contracts, task orders, or subtasks (Government or non-Government) that are on-going or were completed within the past 5 years. Citations of past performance for the Offeror itself (i.e., not for a subcontractor) must demonstrate the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to NASEO’s Directorate Support Service requirements but are required to be of similar size, scope, and complexity.

The Offeror must complete Part A of Volume II which must not exceed 2 pages in length for each contract referenced.

The Offeror must provide the accompanying Part B, Past Performance Customer Survey, to two customer points of contact (program/technical and contracts) for each of the past performance references. The customer POC’s must complete Part B of the form and return to the FAA Contracting Officer (CO). The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that its past-performance surveys are timely submitted; the Government reserves the right to contact the Offeror’s past-performance references and to consider references that are received after proposals are due.

At least one (1) Past-Performance Summary and Survey must be for the Offeror and at least one (1) must be for a proposed major subcontractor if any is proposed. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that will be performing at least 20 percent of the effort under this contract. The amount of effort must be calculated in terms of dollar value. Examples of past performance for a major subcontractor must be of similar size, scope, and complexity to NASEO’s Directorate Support Service requirements but are not required to be for functionally equivalent work.

If the Offeror proposes a subcontractor(s) based on a Subcontractor Teaming Agreement (STA) as defined as defined under the eFAST MOA, the following provisions of H.3 [Contractor Teaming] of the eFAST MOA applies:

Unless the proposed subcontractor is already on the MOA holder’s team or on eFAST’s subcontractor list, the MOA holder proposing a STA must provide the following documentation for each of its proposed subcontractors: 1. A copy the current SAM record (within one (1) week from printout date).

C.1.8.4 Volume IV: Price The Offeror must use and complete the FAA’s Price Model, an MS-Excel formatted file provided as Attachment B [Supplies and Services Prices]. All labor categories set out in Attachment B – the eFAST standard-level labor categories - defined in Section 4.1 of Attachment A [Statement of Work] – are mandatory and must be bid for the full 5-year period of performance. Note that all price information must reside in the Price Volume.

The FAA’s best approximation of the annual labor requirement indicating estimated hours by labor category have been loaded into the Price Model. The Offeror’s proposed annual labor rates will be multiplied by the FAA’s approximated hours and summed over the 5-year period of performance to calculate the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Cost (TEC).

Offerors are advised that the FAA’s total estimated hours and their distribution across specific labor categories within the Price Model (see Attachment B for more details) may change as work is defined on individual task orders.

Offerors are reminded that the clause B.2 of the MOA governing this contract applies and must note that the labor rates in the MOA represent the maximum labor rates that the Government will consider or accept during the life of the award and no other labor rates will be recognized unless lower rates are offered nor may the Offeror propose any additional costs, such as so called “pass through charges,” for work that is subcontracted.

C.1.9 Exceptions The Offeror must submit, under separate cover and without page limitations, any exceptions taken to any of the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) of this SIR, including the SOW (Attachment A). If no exceptions are submitted at the time of the proposal, it will be understood that the Offeror agrees to comply with all of the T&Cs set forth herein.

Each proposal submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by the FAA using all information furnished by the Offeror. This evaluation will consider the following three factors:

1. Corporate Experience

2. Key Personnel

3. Past Performance

4. Price

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows. All non-price factors – Corporate Experience, Key Personnel and Past Performance – are equally important. The combined importance or weight of all non-price factors is significantly more important than the Price factor.

Offerors are advised that while the FAA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

C.2.2 Basis for Award This acquisition will use the Best Value approach for selecting an Offeror for award. Best Value is the solution that is the most advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of technical quality, cost or price, and the other criteria set forth in this solicitation. This approach provides the opportunity for technical to price trade-offs and does not require that an award be made to an Offeror submitting the highest rated technical volume or to an Offeror submitting the lowest price, although the award may be made to either such Offeror.

To be eligible for an award, the Offeror must meet all requirements of this SIR – including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements – and must not receive a rating of “Unacceptable” for any evaluation factor. However, if the CO determines that it is in the best interest of the FAA, the FAA may: (i) reject any offers, (ii) waive any requirement, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies, or all of these.

C.2.3 Evaluation Approach Corporate Experience and Key Personnel will be evaluated against the criteria described in Section C.2.4 and C.2.5, respectively. Past Performance will be evaluated against the criteria described in Section C.2.6. The evaluators will assign an adjectival rating to Corporate Experience and to Key Personnel from SIR Section C.2.3 Table C-2 Corporate Experience and Key Personnel Factor Rating Scale. Past Performance Sub-factors will receive adjectival ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based upon Table C-2 and a Factor-Level rating in accordance SIR Section C.2.6, Table C-3.

Price will be evaluated based upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative considerations in accordance with SIR Section C.2.7. No adjectival or other rating will be assigned to the Price factor. Price will be determined to be either reasonable or unreasonable.

The Government Source Evaluation Team and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity; however, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective and judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

C.2.4 Corporate Experience The Corporate Experience should demonstrate the skills required to meet the full range and scope of FAA’s requirements set out in Attachment A.1.2 [Statement of Work].

The Corporate Experience Factor measures the degree has a proven track record of supporting the day-to-day operations in telecommunications environment and being equipped to support telecommunications implementation and/or transitional activities. The Offeror should have technical expertise which includes being able to make the newest and/or the most advanced processes and/or technology recommendations and/or possible solution set(s) when requested by the FAA. Thus, the Offeror should have an understanding of the FAA capabilities in relationship to the FTI and/or FENS and/or FAVES and/or the EIS contracts.

The Corporate Experience Factor will receive an adjectival rating based on evaluation findings – as described in Table C-2 above in Section C.2.3.

C.2.5 Key Personnel The Key Personnel Factor measures the degree to which the Offeror dedicates a team of key personnel that collectively demonstrates the experience and skills required to meet the full range and scope of FAA’s requirements set out in Attachment A.1.2 [Statement of Work].

The Key Personnel Factor will receive an adjectival rating based on evaluation findings – as described in Table C-2 above in Section C.2.3.

C.2.6 Past Performance The Government will evaluate Past Performance factor using an overall assessment of the seven sub-factors to assign a factor-level rating. The ratings of Sub-factors 1 and 2 will be based on the information provided in Part A of Volume II. The ratings of Sub-factors 3 through 7 will be based on Part B of Volume II, the Customer Surveys, which will be submitted by a Program Office official and the Contracting Officer (CO) for each of the Offeror’s past performance references.

The past-performance evaluation sub-factors are as follows:

Sub-factor 1 – Relevance Past Performance references for the Offeror itself (i.e., not for a major subcontractor) must demonstrate the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to NASEO Directorate Support Service requirements, but are not required to be of similar size, scope, and complexity of NASEO Directorate Support Services. The past performance of major subcontractors must be of similar size, scope, and complexity to NASEO Directorate Support Services but are not required to be for functionally equivalent work.

Sub-factor 2 – Recency The past performance references are ongoing or was completed within five (5) years of the date of the proposal submission deadline.

Sub-factor 3 – Quality of Service Delivery The past performance demonstrates a record of consistently providing services that meet or exceed the customer’s requirements.

Sub-factor 4 – Timeliness of Performance The past performance demonstrates a record of achieving milestones and fulfilling contract requirements on time and meeting delivery schedules.

Sub-factor 5 – Cost Control The past performance demonstrates a record of controlling cost and completing work within proposed prices or estimated costs.

Sub-factor 6 – Program Management The past performance demonstrates a successful record of managing programs, assessing performance, implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and supervising contractor personnel and their work efforts.

Sub-factor 7 – Customer Relationship The past performance demonstrates a record of effectively communicating with customers; being proactive in responding to problems, issues, and client concerns; and acting in partnership with customers to achieve program objectives.

A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each sub-factor by the Government. For Sub factors 1 and 2, a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each past performance summary based on the recency and relevance of the submitted past performance examples.

For Sub-factors 3 through 7 a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned based on the survey responses received for relevant and recent past performance references. To receive an Acceptable rating for Sub-factors 3 through 7, each sub-factor must be assessed by the Offeror’s customer as “Satisfactory” or better.

The Offeror will receive an Acceptable rating for a sub-factor if at least half the response ratings for that sub-factor are Satisfactory or better.

Based upon the ratings of Sub-factors 3 through 7, the Past Performance factor-level rating will be assigned an adjectival rating based on the following scale:

Note that the Government reserves the right to contact the customer points of contact. In addition, the Government reserves the right to obtain additional past-performance information for any prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractors from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, previous contracts, and other sources as determined appropriate by the Government. Information from any or all of these sources may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

C.2.7 Price Evaluation The Offeror’s Price Volume will be evaluated based upon a combination of quantitative and qualitative considerations.

The quantitative portion of the price evaluation will be based upon the Total Evaluated Cost (TEC) for the five (5) year period of performance of the contract. The TEC will be calculated based on the Offeror’s proposed annual labor rates extended by the FAA’s estimated level of effort – as represented in the Attachment B Price Model.

The qualitative portion of the evaluation will consider the overall soundness of the offer in terms of price reasonableness and realism. Price and cost analysis, or either, in accordance with AMS will be used to determine if prices or costs are reasonable and realistic or not. The purpose of realism analysis is to ensure that proposed prices are not so low such that contract performance is put at risk from either a technical and/or cost perspective. It is separate from analyses performed to determine cost or price reasonableness.

In addition, the Contracting Officer will make a determination that the successful Offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable at the time of award.

Appendix 1 NASEO Directorate Support Services Past Performance Summary and Customer Survey Part A- Past-Performance Summary Block 1: Identification of Prime and Team Member That Performed the Effort

a. Name of Offeror (i.e., the Prime):

b. Name of team member company that performed the effort:

c. Role of entity listed in 1b on the Referenced Contract (e.g., Prime, Subcontractor, Other):

If “other,” provide explanation:

Block 2: Customer and Contract Highlights

a. Customer Name (Agency or Company):

b. Contract Title:

c. Contract Number:

d. Contract Period of Performance (including options): [start date] to [end date or ongoing]

Cost Plus Award Fee IDIQ/Task Order Labor Hour T&M

Other (specify):

f. Total Contract Value (across maximum period of performance):

g. Portion of Contract Value (in $) Performed by the entity listed in Block 1b:

h. Name of Customer Point of Contact: [the person to whom Part B will be given]

i. Customer Point of Contact Telephone Number:

j. Customer Point of Contact E-mail Address:

Block 3: Description of Work Efforts Performed or Services Provided

Block 4: Relevance to Requirements (in terms of functional scope and complexity)

The allocation of the remaining page count to responses to Blocks 3 and 4 is left to the Offeror. No Past Performance Summary may exceed 2 pages. Responses to Blocks 3 and 4 (including portions on separate pages) must be in Times New Roman 12-point font.

Part B: Past-Performance Customer Survey Instructions to Offerors:

The Offeror must provide the Past-Performance Customer Survey (Part B) to appropriate customer points of contact for the three (3) Past-Performance Summaries (Part A) submitted by the Offeror in Volume II of the Offeror’s proposal. For Government references, the Customer Survey must be provided to at least two (2) references (one from the Contracting Officer (CO) and one from the program staff) for each of its past performance examples. The program staff references should include individuals with firsthand knowledge of the Offeror’s performance such as a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or a Task Order manager or representative.

For past performance under other contracts, such as commercial contracts, the Customer Survey must be provided to individuals with duties similar to those of the Government CO and COR.

To aid the person completing the survey, the Offeror must complete Block 1 of the Customer Survey to identify its name and the specific contract being referenced.

The Offeror is responsible for following up and encouraging references to submit the Customer Survey. The due date for the completed Customer Surveys is the same as the due date for all proposal volumes identified in Section C.1.1. The Customer Survey must be submitted directly by the person completing the survey via e-mail to dennis.scanlon@faa.gov.

Instructions to be Provided to the Person Completing the Customer Survey:

In order to assess Offerors responding to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Screening Information Request (SIR) for NASEO Directorate Support Services, the FAA is seeking past performance information with respect to each Offeror. You have been selected as a Past-Performance reference by one of the Offerors. The name of the Offeror, contract title, and contract number are identified on the next page under Block 1. Please correct any information in Block 1 that was not accurately provided by the Offeror. Within the Customer Survey, the Offeror is referred to as “the Contractor” relative to its support of your organization.

You are requested to complete Blocks 2 through 4 of the Customer Survey. The Customer Survey is predominantly in a multiple-choice format. Narrative explanations are only requested when a rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory is indicated. All inputs must be provided electronically directly in the Microsoft Word file.

Please print the completed Customer Survey, sign in Block 4, scan to PDF format, and e-mail to dennis.scanlon@faa.gov and elizabeth.h.williams@faa.gov no later than 2:00pm Eastern Daylight Time on November 10, 2022. The subject line in the submission e-mail should clearly indicate: NASEO Directorate Support Services Past-Performance Questionnaire Submission for <Contractor’s Name>. The e-mail message must originate from your Government or Corporate e-mail address, as applicable. If needed, you may receive a follow-up phone call or e-mail to confirm or clarify information.

If you have questions regarding this Past Performance Survey or if the person answering this survey requires assistance, you may email inquiries to the Contracting Officer at dennis.scanlon@faa.gov or telephone him at (202) 999-8383; Any written correspondence should be copied to: elizabeth.h.williams@faa.gov.

Part B - Past Performance Customer Survey Block 1: Offeror Information (completed by the Contractor)

a. Contractor name:

b. Contract title:

c. Contract number:

d. Role on contract (e.g., prime or subcontractor):

e. Period of Performance: [start date] to [end date or ongoing]

Block 2: Reference Information

a. Name:

b. Name of Organization (Agency or Company):

c. Current Position Title:

d. Role on Referenced Contract (e.g., CO, COR, PM):

e. Mailing Address:

f. Telephone number:

g. E-mail Address:

Block 3: Assessment of Contractor’s Past Performance

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Quality and performance of services frequently exceeded requirements and customer expectations

· Very high quality of deliverables; re-work not required

Good

· Quality and performance of services met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations

· High quality of deliverables; re-work not required

Satisfactory

· Quality and performance of services met requirements and customer expectations

· No re-work of deliverables required beyond editorial updates

Marginal

· Quality and performance of services did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

· Re-work of deliverables occasionally required to address quality issues and requirements shortfalls

Unsatisfactory

· Quality and performance of services frequently did not meet requirements and was often below customer expectations

· Re-work of deliverables frequently required to address quality issues and requirements shortfalls

Assessment (check one):

Exceptional

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Block 3: Assessment of Contractor’s Past Performance (continued)

Timeliness of Performance The Contractor’s performance relative to achieving milestones, fulfilling contract requirements on time, and meeting delivery schedules:

· Deliverables, products, and services consistently provided in advance of the required due dates

· No corrective actions required to improve on-time delivery Good

· Deliverables, products, and services sometimes provided in advance of the required due dates

· Corrective actions, if any were required, were very effective in improving on-time delivery Satisfactory

· Deliverables, products, and services generally provided by the required due dates

· Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery were effective Marginal

· Deliverables, products, and services sometimes provided after the required due dates

· Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery had minimal effectiveness Unsatisfactory

· Deliverables, products, and services consistently provided after the required due dates

· Corrective actions to improve on-time delivery were not effective

Assessment (check one):

Exceptional

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

· Met or exceeded contract requirements at more than 10% below cost estimates or target prices

· Effectively applied earned value management or other management techniques

· No cost or price issues encountered

Good

· Met or exceeded contract requirements at 5-10% below cost estimates or target prices

· Applied earned value management or other management techniques

· Quickly resolved any cost or price issues

Satisfactory

· Performed within cost estimates or target prices while meeting contract requirements

· Resolved any cost or price issues within a reasonable amount of time

· No requests for recovery of costs above the cost estimates or target prices Marginal

· Cost overruns (30% or less) on the contract as a whole

· Contractor-recommended strategies for bringing costs or prices within expectations were not effective Unsatisfactory

· Significant cost overruns (more than 30%) on the contract as a whole

· No strategies or corrective actions recommended by the Contractor to bring costs or prices within expectations

Assessment (check one):

Exceptional

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Block 3: Assessment of Contractor’s Past Performance (continued)

· Contractor’s Program Management function was fully engaged in oversight of work efforts

· Instituted well-defined and repeatable management processes to assess performance and avoid the need for corrective actions.

· Staff deployed very efficiently. All deadlines met or exceeded with the least staff necessary.

Good

· Contractor’s Program Management function was consistently engaged in oversight of work efforts

· Corrective actions were identified in a timely manner and successfully implemented as needed.

· Staff deployed efficiently. Tasks completed in an efficient manner without surplus staff.

Satisfactory

· Contractor’s Program Management function was adequately engaged in oversight of work efforts

· Corrective actions were adequately identified and implemented as needed

· Staff deployed appropriately. Tasks completed with reasonable number of staff.

Marginal

· Contractor’s Program Management function was not consistently engaged in oversight of work efforts

· Corrective actions were not consistently identified and implemented as needed

· Staff not consistently deployed efficiently. Required additional staff to complete the task.

Unsatisfactory

· Contractor’s Program Management function was rarely engaged in oversight of work efforts

· Corrective actions were not identified and implemented as needed.

· Staff always deployed inefficiently. Required many additional staff to complete the task.

Assessment (check one):

Exceptional

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Block 3: Assessment of Contractor’s Past Performance (continued)

· Consistent and effective level of communication with customers

· Very high level of customer satisfaction

· Standard practice was to act proactively

· Frequently responsive in advance of the expected timeframes

· Standard practice was to act in partnership with the customer to achieve or exceed program objectives

Good

· Consistent level of communication with customers

· High level of customer satisfaction

· Often acted proactively

· Responsive within and/or in advance of the expected timeframes

· Frequently acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives

Satisfactory

· Adequate level of communication with customers

· Adequate level of customer satisfaction

· Acted proactively

· Responsive within the expected timeframes

· Acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives Marginal

· Inconsistent level of communication with customers

· Low level of customer satisfaction

· Did not consistently act proactively

· Not consistently responsive within the expected timeframes

· Infrequently acted in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives

Unsatisfactory

· Inadequate level of communication with customers

· Very low level of customer satisfaction

· Did not act proactively

· Rarely responsive within the expected timeframes

· Did not act in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives

Assessment (check one):

Exceptional

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

No

Any additional comments you would like to share:

Block 4: Signature

image1.jpeg image2.jpeg