Attach_4_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 190 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mass Notification System (GIANT VOICE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2823-15-R-3005
About this file
Attach 4 Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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 NUMBER: FA2823-15-R-XXXX
**When filled in this document is Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104**
Base Operations Support Flight, Installation Contracting Division, Air Force Test Center (AFTC/PZIOA), Eglin Air Force Base, Florida is conducting a source selection for the 96th Communications Squadron for the purchase and installation of an Outdoor Mass Notification System (MNS). Please complete and return this questionnaire within 5 workdays. Handwritten responses are sufficient. Do not send a copy of the completed questionnaire to the contractor being assessed. You may be contacted by our office to review the results of the questionnaire. The questionnaire information will be used in the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor contained in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation. Completed questionnaires will become part of the official source selection records and protected in accordance with FAR 3.104 and 2.101. Please email the completed questionnaire to both of the following:
Ronald J. Wilson, Contracting Officer: ronald.wilson.22@us.af.mil
CPT John Crawford, Contract Specialist: john.crawford.15@us.af.mil
Evaluator, please complete, date and sign the following: SECTION 1: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION Date Evaluation Completed: _____________________________________________________ Location of Mass Notification System Installation: ___________________________________ Evaluator Name: ______________________________________________________________ Position Title and Grade: ________________________________________________________ How long has your Mass Notification System been in use: _____________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Phone Number (DSN and Commercial): ____________________________________________ Email Address:________________________________________________________________ Are you aware of another POC that might be appropriate for completion of this questionnaire?
If so, please provide any information you can. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evaluator’s Signature Date
| ATTACHMENT 4 |
| FA2823-15-R-3005 |
SECTION 2: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
A. Manufacturer of MNS:
B. Cage Code:
C. Subcontractor(s):
D. Cage Code:
E. Contract number:
F. Contract type:
G. Total original contract cost/value: Total current cost/value: ____________ Reason for difference: ______________________________________________________
H. What is the make and model of your recently purchased/installed outdoor mass notification system (MNS)?
I. Was the MNS installed per your established time line?
J. Prior to the installation of the MNS, did the contractor come on site to complete a site survey and assess the coverage area?
K. Did the manufacturer’s assessment of the coverage area and the subsequent placement of speaker arrays provide the intended coverage? If not, please explain.
L. After installation of the MNS, did the actual coverage area meet identified requirements? If not, please explain.
M. After installation of the MNS, did the performance of the system meet expectations? If not, please explain.
N. Have you experienced any problems with integrating peripheral systems, such as At Hoc, alarm systems and indoor mass notifications systems, with you MNS? If so, please explain.
O. Has the MNS experienced any failures or outages since installation? Please provide brief description and resolution.
P. Has the system manufacturer responded to warranty calls on the MNS after installation in a timely manner? If not, please explain.
Q. Has the contractor been able to quickly repair and resolve any operational problems with one visit? If not, please explain.
R. Since the installation of your MNS, what is the uptime rate of the system?
S. What is the mean time between failure on your MNS?
T. What is the total cost of ownership of your MNS (Total cost of ownership) of your MNS?
U. Since the installation of your MNS, what are your historical incurred annual maintenance costs?
V. What has been the most common failure of your MNS since installation?
W. How many failures due to lightning strikes have you experienced on your MNS since it was installed?
X. In your estimation, what is the ease of maintenance of your MNS? Are units modular replacement at the field level or are must repairs be completed by the manufacturer?
Y. Please describe your MNS warranty?
SECTION 3: EVALUATION
The following is an explanation of the evaluation codes:
PERFORMANCE LEVEL CODES
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| Exceptional |
| Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Neutral |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Performance does not meet/did 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 or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Performance does not meet/did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against. |
EVALUATION AREAS
For each of the following questions, place an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question which best reflects your assessment of the contractor’s performance. Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, G, S, M, U, and N) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. In the event a question is not applicable to your contract, mark N. Please provide a narrative explanation for performance deemed “Exceptional”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory”. If more comment space is needed please attach additional pages.
| Quality of Service |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Clarity of audible messages announced on the MNS
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Clarity of the music played on the MNS
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Ease of operating the MNS
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Communications with manufacturer after purchase
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Quality of manufacturer’s support after installation
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Quality of installation practices of the manufacturer
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Quality of cut-over/integration plan of the contractor
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Quality of interoperability with peripheral systems (At Hoc, indoor mass notification systems, alarm systems, etc)
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor measure customer satisfaction?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor do in providing experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor delegate authority to project managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor attract and retain qualified and fully trained personnel at all levels within their organization to ensure contract compliance?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well does the contractor’s organization provide the necessary manning to meet requirements?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
When an employee vacancy occurred, were vacancies filled within a timely manner?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How would you rate the contractor’s home office participation in resolving local issues?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Rate the contractor’s ability to respond to workload fluctuations.
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How effective was the contractor in identifying and solving technical issues in a timely manner and in accordance with their quality control procedures?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor use performance measurements and reporting systems to track performance?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How effective and efficient were the contractor’s quality assurance processes?
Comments:
| Timeliness of Performance |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well did the contractor perform timely completion of contractual requirements to include required reports?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How would you rate the timeliness and accuracy of the contractor’s submitted invoices?
Comments:
| Business Relations |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How willing was the contractor to improve and correct noncompliance issues or concerns?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How would you rate the overall customer satisfaction rating?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How well does the contractor satisfactorily interface with Government personnel and/or other existing support contractors?
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Rate the contractor’s overall management of subcontracts.
Comments:
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
How would you rate the overall performance of the MNS?
Comments:
| General (Answer Yes, NO or N/A) |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
Are you pleased with the performance of the MNS?
Comments:
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
Does the MNS meet all mission requirements?
Comments:
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
Given the choice, would you purchase the same MNS on your next MNS purchase?
Comments:
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Are there any shortfalls or deficiencies identified in the performance of the MNS?
Are there any features or capabilities of the MNS that could not be performed by another MNS?
COMMENTS
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired, use additional paper if needed.
The performance assessment rating will be based upon an assessment of performance risk and represents the government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. Therefore, an honest assessment with regard to this Contractor’s performance is critical. Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .