B08 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Your organization has been identified to participate in the past performance evaluation on a current solicitation at the Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC), Fort Campbell, Kentucky. This survey will be used to evaluate past performance for the contractor and contract action identified below.

Candid feedback is important to the evaluation effort and may affect award outcome. Please indicate “NA” in any area which is not applicable to work performed on your contract. In accordance with OFPP Policy Letter 92-5, the names of individuals supplying past performance information will remain confidential.

Thank you for your time and effort in completing this survey.

This Survey is in reference to Solicitation W91248-26-Q-XXX1, to provide Catholic Administrative Pastoral Life Coordinator services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. This role involves assisting the Catholic Chaplain and Priest in conducting religious services in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's guidelines, Archdiocese for the Military Services policies, Army Regulation 165-1, and Installation Chaplain Policies.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

1. Contractor information:

Contractor _________________________________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________________

Telephone Number __________________________________________________________

Point of Contact ____________________________________________________________

2. Individual completing this survey:

Name _______________________________________________________

Title ________________________________________________________

Telephone Number ____________________________________________

3. Contract Number ___________________________________________________________________

4. Type of Contract ___________________________________________________________________

Fixed Price: Price for Contract negotiated and fixed prior to delivery of service.

Time & Material: Price for Contract determined by number of hours or quantities of materials used in the delivery of service based, upon previously fixed price rates for time and material.

Cost Reimbursement: Provides for payment of allowable incurred costs to the extent prescribed in the contract.

5. Acquisition Method: Competitive ( ) yes ( ) no Sole Source ( ) yes ( ) no

6. Award Amount $_____________ Current Value $_____________ Projected Final $ _____________

7. Performance Period _____________________________________ Years Remaining _____________

8. Briefly describe the services performed:

RATING SYSTEM FOR PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Past Performance Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists.

Assigning Ratings: The Past Performance Factor will be assigned “Acceptable” or Unacceptable” rating as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on offeror’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See below)

Unacceptable Based on offeror’s past performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror must be determined to have neutral past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “neutral” must be considered “acceptable.”

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size, and complexity.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contract, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE: Please provide rating and any explanatory or descriptive comments.

1. Overall quality of services provided. Rating: _______

2. Did work provided comply with contract requirements and conform to standards of good workmanship, e.g.

commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards. Rating: __________

3. How well did the offeror provide quality deliverables such as reports? Rating: ______

4. Was the contractor responsive to emergency situations? Rating: _______

SCHEDULE: Please provide rating and any explanatory or descriptive comments.

1. Was work performed in a timely manner as outlined in the contract? Rating: _______

2. How well did the offeror meet schedules? Rating: _____

3. How well did the offeror manage changing work conditions or accelerated completion dates?

Rating: ________

4. How well did the offeror prioritize work? Rating: _________

5. Was the offeror responsive to Government’s inquiries and changing requirements?

Rating: _____

MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL: Please provide rating and any explanatory or descriptive comments.

1. How well did the contractor/offeror work with the contracting and technical representatives? Rating

2. Was the offeror responsive to management and changes? Rating: __________

3. Were contractors paid in a timely manner? Rating: _______

4. Was the offeror reasonable and cooperative with the Government? Rating: _________

BUSINESS RELATIONS: Please provide rating and any explanatory or descriptive comments.

1. How well did the offeror manage subcontractors? Rating ___________

2. Did the offeror hire, retain, and train qualified personnel? Rating ___________

3. How effective was the offeror’s on-site management? Rating ___________

4. How well did the offeror substitute key personnel? Rating ___________