DTFAWA-16-R-00015_Attachment L-2_Past Performance Questionnaire_Amendment_2 final.docx

DTFAWA-16-R-00015

ATTACHMENT L-2

PAST-PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AND CUSTOMER SURVEY

Part A: Past-Performance Summary

Offerors must complete a Past-Performance Summary for three (3) past-performance references in accordance with Section L.13.4 using the form provided on the following page. The Past-Performance Summaries must be submitted within Volume IV of the proposal by the date and time identified in Section L.3.

Part A- Past-Performance Summary Block 1: Identification of Prime and Team Member That Performed the Effort

a. Name of EPICS 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 EPICS 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 IV 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 L.3. The Customer Survey must be submitted directly by the person completing the survey via e-mail to the FAA CO identified in Section G.2 of the EPICS SIR.

Instructions 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 Enterprise Programs, Infrastructure, and Communications Services (EPICS), 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 may 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 charles.mcgovern@faa.gov no later than 2:00pm Eastern Daylight Time on Monday, June 13, 2016. Alternatively, please convert the completed survey to PDF format, sign electronically in Block 4, and e-mail to charles.mcgovern@faa.gov. The subject line in the submission e-mail should clearly indicate: EPICS 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 survey or require assistance, please email inquiries to Charles McGovern@faa.gov or call (202) 267- 8468.

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

Attachment L-2 – Page 3