Attachment J.2-G - Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

80GRC021R0011 Request for Proposal Attachment J.2-G

Attachment J.2-G – Past Performance Questionnaire S&MA Engineering and Technical Support (SETS)

Solicitation # 80GRC021R0011 Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently conducting a competitive procurement to provide the NASA Safety Center (NSC) and the NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) with Administrative Support Services, Communication and Professional Development Services, Information Technology (IT) Services, and Technical Knowledge Services. The anticipated contract will be a cost-plus-fixed-fee base contract with the ability to issue cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders as needed.

To assist in evaluating proposals under this procurement, you have been selected as a reference and are hereby requested to provide descriptive information for the following contract:

General Information

Offeror’s Information (Company being evaluated):

Company Name Contract Title

Number Type Period of Performance Total Value (with all exercised options)

Business Size Classification Contract Description Number of employees on contract

Instructions

Please respond to the attached questionnaire. Questions 1 - 8 are self-explanatory. For Question 9, mark the appropriate block, indicating the contractor’s past performance as shown for in each area identified. Examples and comments to support your ratings, especially if VERY HIGH OR VERY LOW LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE, are particularly useful. If the subject contract did not require performance in a given work area, please mark N/A. Additional pages may be used if desired.

Please send the completed form via email by the proposal due date of Friday, April 22, 2022.

Please use “SETS Past Performance Questionnaire” in the subject line of the email submission.

Noah S. Garrison, Contracting Officer Telephone: 216-433-5034 E-mail: noah.s.garrison@nasa.gov

Attachment J.2-G – Past Performance Questionnaire S&MA Engineering and Technical Support (SETS)

Solicitation # 80GRC021R0011

1. Respondent Information:

Name

Title

Contact Information

Phone Number

E-mail

Company Name

Address

City, State, Zip

Length of time involved with Offeror

Signature of Respondent

2. During this contract period of performance, this firm was the:

[ ] Prime Contractor [ ] Significant Subcontractor [ ] Team Member [ ] Other (please describe)

3. What percentage of the total contract value did this company perform? [____]%

4. Does a corporate relationship exist between the company being evaluated and your organization?

[ ] No [ ] Yes (please describe)

5. Unusual contract features or conditions, if any:

6. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience?

[ ] No [ ] Yes

If yes, please explain the reason(s) for termination (i.e., inability to meet cost or delivery schedules, technical performance, etc.)

7. Was/is there a cost overrun/underrun?

[ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, what was the magnitude and the reason?

8. Would you do business with the Contractor again?

[ ] Yes [ ] No If no, please explain:

9. Please rate the overall past performance of the contractor in the following areas using the definitions given at the bottom of the table.

E. V.G. G S U.S. N. Comment Technical Ratings

1. Effectiveness in formulating a technical approach including understanding of the technical issues and appropriateness of skill level/mix

2. Effectiveness in meeting contract technical requirements (quality and performance deliverables)

3. Effectiveness in correcting performance deficiencies.

4. Quality of reports and documentation

Management Ratings

5. Effectiveness of technical management, including the degree of customer monitoring and guidance required

6. Effectiveness in recruiting, maintaining, and managing a workforce with the required skill mix.

7. Effectiveness in responding and managing fluctuating workloads and task orders

8. Effectiveness of business management, including the degree of customer monitoring and guidance required

9. Record in effectively selecting and managing subcontractors

Compliance Ratings

10. Compliance with safety, health and environmental requirements

11. Compliance with contractual terms and conditions including intellectual property requirements.

Cost/Financial Rating

12. Effectiveness in controlling contract costs and timeliness of submitting cost reporting

Schedule Ratings

13. Effectiveness in meeting contract schedules (timeliness of deliverables)

14. Timeliness of reports and documentation

15. Ability to adapt to changing technical requirements in a timely manner

Overall Rating

Definition of rankings

EXCEPTIONAL (E): The Offeror’s past performance is of exceptional merit; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

VERY GOOD (V.G.): The Offeror’s past performance is fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY (S): The Offeror’s past performance meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

MARGINAL (M): The Offeror's past performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor's propose actions appear only marginally effective, or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U.S.): The Offeror’s past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas;

problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL (N): No record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available.