DRAFT Attachment L-2 Past Performance Questionaire Form.pdf

Center Operations and Maintenance Services

SIR 692M15-24-R-00010

ATTACHMENT L-2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS SENDING REFERENCE SURVEY FORMS:

Part I must be completed by the Offeror (the firm requesting the reference) prior to issuing the surveys. The Offeror must send the surveys for relevant projects with performance that was ongoing or completed within five (5) years of the SIR closing date. The Offeror must send the surveys to the individuals who will provide the reference. For Government contracts, send to the Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), or Project Manager. For state, municipal, and commercial references, send to personnel with duties similar to those for Government contracts. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to follow-up and encourage references to submit the survey. The completed survey must be submitted via e-mail directly from the person providing the reference, not from the Offeror as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSON PROVIDING REFERENCE:

In order to assess potential vendors under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Center Operations and Maintenance Services competition, the FAA Contracting Office is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror. As a reference for work performed by the firm identified in Part I of this survey, your candid response will assist in the evaluation process. Please complete Part II of the survey as thoroughly as possible and submit to sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov no later than X:00 PM Eastern Time on the due date of proposal submission. The subject line in the submission e-mail must clearly indicate: COMS Past Performance Evaluation Survey Submission for <Company Name> and the message must originate from the reference’s government (federal, state, municipal) or commercial e-mail system.

In addition to this survey, you may receive a follow-up phone call or e-mail to confirm or clarify information. This is a major FAA acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding this survey or require assistance, please submit inquiries to: sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov.

Sincerely, Sarah McCarty Contracting Officer Federal Aviation Administration mailto:sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov mailto:sarah.e.mccarty@faa.gov

ATTACHMENT L-2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY

PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR REQUESTING THE REFERENCE)

A. OFFEROR INFORMATION

Offeror Name:

Offeror Address:

B. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Project Title:

Contract Number:

Agency/Customer:

Agency/Customer POC Name:

Agency/Customer POC Email:

Contract/Order/Subcontract/Other:

PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONDENT)

Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Provide commentary to support all Outstanding and Unsatisfactory ratings on the last page.

Assign each area a rating of Outstanding (O), Good (G), Satisfactory (S), and Unsatisfactory (U). Use the attached Rating Guidelines which is provided as Exhibit 1 as guidance in making these evaluations. Enter the appropriate rating for each Category number.

A. IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT

Name:

Title:

Phone:

Address:

Email:

O

FF

ER

O

R C

O M

P

LE

TE

B. EVALUATION

QUALITY OF SERVICE:

# Category Rating

E VG S M U N/A

1 Compliance with contract requirements

2 Accuracy of reports

Level of knowledge, experience, and training of personnel

Capability of personnel to perform required services

Effectiveness of personnel in performing required services

6 Overall quality of service

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

# Category Rating

E VG S M U N/A

1 Reliability

2 Responsive to technical direction

Meets contract delivery schedules and/or task deadlines

COST CONTROL:

Rating

E VG S M U N/A

1 Current, accurate and complete billings

2 Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals

3 Cost effectiveness

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:

Rating

E VG S M U N/A

1 Adequate and complete management plan

Specific management team dedicated to this project

Indications that the provided team had experience in subcontractor management and surveillance

Rating

E VG S M U N/A

Process, or metrics, for the evaluation of their own overall management performance

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP:

Rating

E VG S M U N/A

1 Effective management, including subcontracts

2 Reasonable/cooperative behavior

3 Responsive to contract requirements

4 Notification of problems

5 Flexibility

6 Proactive vs. reactive

OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

Response

Yes No

The contractor is committed to customer satisfaction:

a. Contractor Management Personnel

b. Contractor Onsite Facility Personnel

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, including support for all Outstanding and Unsatisfactory ratings:

Exhibit 1: Rating Guidelines Use the following definitions in your assessment of contractor performance.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

Exceptional (E) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, there must have been multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there must have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good (VG) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, there must have been a significant event that was a benefit to the Government. There must have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there must have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There must have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, there must have been a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming that impacted the Government. A

Unsatisfactory (U)

Performance does not meet one or more contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, there must have been multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming that impacted the Government. A singular problem, problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.