Attach 7b Past Perf Questionnaire.docx

FA3002-10-R-0045

Attachment 7b

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

1. The contractor listed below is being considered in a Source Selection by the Air Education and Training Command Contracting Squadron, Randolph AFB, TX. You have received this questionnaire because you have been identified as a source of Past Performance Information for that offeror. Any comments you can provide regarding the past performance of the contractor providing this form is greatly appreciated.

2. Please complete the attached questionnaire for the contractor and program described in Section I below (to be completed by the offeror) based on the following guidance. Send the completed questionnaire to Melissa Gonzalez and Joseph Sitterly via e-mail at melissa.gonzalez@randolph.af.mil and joseph.sitterly@randolph.af.mil or fax to 210-652-5733. Do not send the completed questionnaire to the contractor. We appreciate your help.

PLEASE FILL IN ALL SECTIONS. STATE “NOT APPLICABLE” IF QUESTION DOES NOT APPLY OR YOU HAVE NO COMMENT. YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE WILL BE ONE OF THE KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL AND TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE SOURCE SELECTION.

3. Indicate a rating, based on the description below, for the contractor’s performance on the identified program. Underline the selected rating. Assessments should reflect only contractor liable performance. The following is a definition of the rating levels.

Exceptional

EX

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

Very Good

VG

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

SAT

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

MAR

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

Unsatisfactory

UNS

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable

NA

Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

4. Please provide narrative explanations to support your ratings particularly for high or low ratings. Space for your remarks is provided after each area.

5. In addition to completing the attached questionnaire for the identified program, please provide comments on any other programs for which your activity has contracts with this contractor. You are urged to supplement your own knowledge of the contractor’s performance with the judgment of others in your organization.

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ________________________________________________________________________________

B. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to: _________________________________

C. Contract number: _______________________________________

D. Contract type: ______________________________

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________

G. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

H. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name: ______________________________________________________________________________

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable): _______________________________________________________________

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

D. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs: ____________________________

E. Description of service provided ________________________________________________________________

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name: ______________________________________________________________________________________ B. Evaluator's title: ______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Evaluator's phone/fax number: ___________________________________________________________________

Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

1. Adequacy of technical knowledge of governing DoD instructions and Air Force Instructions for integration and development of Certification and Accreditation (C&A) packages.

2. Quality of completion of DoD Information Assurnace Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) packages accomplished for the Department of Defense (DoD) that lead to an Approval to Operate (ATO).

3. Completion of C&A packages under the DoD Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process (DITSCAP), a predecessor to DIACAP, that lead to an ATO.

4. Use of the Air Force Enterprise Information Technology Data Repository (EITDR) System.

5. Providing technical support and documentation to achieve Federal Information System Management Act (FISMA) validation.

6. Coordinating with the systems owner to meet minimum database solution requirements and ensure appropriate EITDR and/or FISMA questions are answered.

7. Conducting a DIACAP C&A package on a base level NIPRnet/SIPRnet circuit.

8. Met DIACAP timelines in an efficient and timely manner.

9. Met FISMA requirements in an efficient and timely manner.

10. Understood/complied with customer objectives and technical requirements.

11. Ability to meet contract requirements.

12. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program).

Comments:

1. Provided knowledgeable employees with the ability to validate DIACAP packages and integrate the DIACAP process.

2. Provide personnel with sufficient knowledge of Information Assurance to provide technical guidance on the completion of DIACAP packages.

3. Effectiveness of contractor’s mediation of any problems to include schedule delays.

4. Quality of DIACAP C&A training provided to customers.

Comments:

1. Compliance with Government Communications – Computer Security policies, instructions, and guidelines.

Comments:

Overall, how satisfied are you with the contractor’s performance?

Comments:

Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes___ Default___ Convenience___ Pending Terminations___ No ___

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc).

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Email: melissa.gonzalez@randolph.af.mil and joseph.sitterly@randolph.af.mil

Or FAX to: 210-652-5733