Attachment_2_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

MFT 20-06 - FISHER HOUSE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

IAW FAR 2.101 & 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION (filled out by contractor)

A. Contractor: _________________________

B. Contractor Cage Code: ________________

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: $_______________________________

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

J. Description of service provided:

Healthcare Linen

Annual Workload of at least 800,000 pounds

Annual Workload of at least 600,000 pounds

The laundering of Customer Owned Goods

Other (list similar specialties below) SECTION 2: REFERENCE OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION (filled out by reference) A. Reference’s agency name:

B. Reference or agency description (if applicable):

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION (filled out by reference)

A. Evaluator's name:

B. Evaluator's title:

C. Evaluator's phone/fax number:

D. Length of time (number of years/months) evaluator worked on subject contract:

SECTION 4: EVALUATION (filled out by reference) Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

1 SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE (EXCEPTIONAL) - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

2 SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE (VERY GOOD) - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

3 LIMITED CONFIDENCE (MARGINAL) – During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

4 NO CONFIDENCE (UNSATISFACTORY) – During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

Technical Performance 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. Did the contractor maintain all required certifications and accreditations throughout entire performance period?

2. Was the vehicle(s) the contractor used to transport clean linen to your facility clean, equipped to protect against contamination, and conform to all commercial sanitation standards?

3. Were linen carts cleaned and sanitized each time before the vendor loaded them with clean linen?

4. Did you routinely receive another facility’s linens or did your facility’s linens fail to be returned to your facility if Customer Owned Goods (COG)?

5. Did the vendor routinely exceed the allotted shrinkage factor?

6. Did the vendor launder your facility’s linen separate from that of other facilities?

Program Management 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

5. How did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts?

Program Management 1 2 3 4 N/A

6. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Equipment)?

7. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?

8. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?

Transition/phase-in 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. Did contractor smoothly transition resources and personnel?

Employee Retention/Attraction 1 2 3 4 N/A

1. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort?

2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?

2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated M (Marginal) or U (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary). Feel free to discuss any other pertinent data that you feel is relevant.

3. Government Contracts Only: Was this contract 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).

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY (filled out by reference)

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!

Evaluator - Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Rick Thorp e-mail: richard.thorp.4@us.af.mil Fax: (707) 424-5189 Phone: (707) 816-3899

60th Contracting Squadron/PKB 350 Hangar Avenue, Building 549 Travis AFB, CA 94535-2632 mailto:richard.thorp.4@us.af.mil

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION (filled out by reference)