Attachment L-02 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Replace Air Handler Units, Azalea Dining Hall, B6960 at Keesler AFB Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA301025R0025
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for Solicitation No. FA301025R0025, issued by the Department of the Air Force Air Education and Training Command for replacing Air Handler Units (AHUs) at the Azalea Dining Hall at Keesler Air Force Base. The solicitation is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business set-aside with a project magnitude between $500,000 and $1,000,000, scheduled for an organized site visit on 14 August 2025 at 08:00 AM CDT. Potential offerors must provide proof of identification, vehicle registration, and insurance to access the base.
The questionnaire is designed to collect past performance information from references, with submissions due by 10:00 AM CST on September 08, 2025, directly to the Contracting Officer. The evaluation will assess the contractor's performance across five key areas: quality of work, schedule/timeliness, management, regulatory compliance, and overall performance, using a rating scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. Notably, the solicitation includes a critical caveat that funds are not currently available, and the government reserves the right to cancel the solicitation at any time without reimbursing offeror costs.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Solicitation No. FA301025R0025
Please complete this questionnaire and email to: tonny.mabonga@us.af.mil
We are currently preparing our proposal for the 81st Contracting Squadron, Keesler AFB, MS, Solicitation Number: FA301025R0025 for replacing AHUs at Azalea Dining Hall located within Keesler Air Force Base. As part of our proposal, we have listed you as a reference on our performance for this type of service with your agency or company under the previous or ongoing contract listed below. Your input on our performance is therefore requested.
This Questionnaire is due to SrA Tonny Mabonga no later than 10:00 AM CST on September 08, 2025. The Questionnaire must be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer from a corporate or government email account.
If you will be unavailable on September 08, 2025, for verification (if necessary) of this past performance evaluation, please indicate another point of contact (POC) for the Contracting Officer to contact.
Thank you.
POC/Alternate POC Name:
POC/Alternate POC Phone Number:
POC/Alternate POC Email Address:
Name of Offeror:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
CONTRACT REFERENCED
Contract Number (including Task Order number if applicable):
Contract Value (including all modifications):
Period of Performance:
Name of Person Completing Questionnaire:
Agency/Company:
Title:
Phone:
Email:
Brief Description of Work Required in the Referenced Contract:
EVALUATION
Please rate the contractor utilizing the guide below. Explanatory narratives giving specific details would be appreciated. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. Evaluation Definitions: The following definitions should be used in assessing Contractor performance.
| Exceptional: |
| Performance EXCEEDS MANY contractual requirements. Performance being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good: |
| Performance EXCEEDS SOME contractual requirements. Performance being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory: |
| Performance MEETS contractual requirements. Performance being evaluated contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal: |
| Performance MEETS SOME contractual requirements. Performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginal effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Unsatisfactory: |
| Performance DOES NOT MEET contractual requirements. Performance contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Not Applicable (N/A): |
| Performance information is not recent or relevant as defined in the solicitation. Unable to provide assessment. |
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
QUALITY
What is your assessment of the Contractor’s ability to meet work requirements and the overall quality of the work?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Quality of Work
Comments:
SCHEDULE
What is your assessment of the Contractor’s ability to provide end-products timely?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Timeliness
Ability to Resolve Timeliness Problems
Comments:
MANAGEMENT
What is your assessment of the Contractor’s ability to manage all aspects of the work?
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Managing Work Aspects
Comments:
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
What is your assessment of the Contractor’s ability to meet all regulatory requirements? Examples would include safety regulations, Davis-Bacon Act and other labor standards.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
Complying with Regulations
Comments:
OVERALL RATING OF CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
What is your overall rating of the Contractor’s performance on the contract being assessed.
| Exceptional |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
General Comments:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .