Attachment 6- Draft Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

Attachment 6

FA4452-11-R-0001

DRAFT

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

When Filled In This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

SUBJECT: Request for Past Performance Evaluation

TO: Contractor References

You have been identified as a point of contact for a past and/or present performance evaluation of the firm listed on the attached questionnaire. This firm is currently being considered for a Transportation Data Processing Center contract at Scott AFB, IL.

Your prompt attention to this questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this request, please forward them to Julie Brueggemann at 618-256-9957 or email: julia.brueggemann@scott.af.mil.

1 Atch Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Past Performance Questionnaire Air Mobility Command (AMC) Airborne Communications and Information Support

Please provide concise comments regarding your overall assessment of the contractor’s performance on the contract identified below. Your ratings (i.e., Exceptional, Very Good, etc.) should include comments for any question rated higher or lower than Satisfactory. Please respond by sending the entire completed questionnaire, including these instructions, via e-mail to the address below.

507 Symington Drive, Room W202 Scott AFB, IL 62225-5022 E-mails : julia.brueggemann@scott.af.mil Phone: 618-256-9957 DSN 576-9957

FAX : 618-256-3091

Request response NLT 3:00pm CST, 22 October 2010.

NOTE: PPIRS may be reviewed for the contractors as well as responses to this questionnaire. Although you may have filed a CPARS for the contract listed, we would appreciate your response to this questionnaire because some of the questions relate to areas not covered by CPARS.

I. WORK PERFORMED IDENTIFICATION

Contractor (Company/Division):

Contract Number/Type (FFP, CPFF, etc):

Work Performed Title:

Brief Description of Work Performed:

Dollar value (include per year cost and life cycle cost):

Period of Performance:

II. RESPONDENT(S) TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ______________________________________________________________________ Business Address: ___________________________________________________________________ Relation to Program: _________________________________________________________________ Phone: (DSN)__________________________(Commercial)__________________________________ FAX: (DSN) __________________________(Commercial) __________________________________

Other suggested points of contact:

Give a brief, general description of what the contractor was required to provide/deliver. Please note that if your response indicates a weakness in the contractor’s performance, a notification may be submitted to the contractor, and they may be made aware of the comment. The contractor will not be made aware of the commenter’s name or office.

DESCRIPTION: ___________________________________________________________________________

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

NOTE 1: Remarks may be continued on separate pages. Please identify category and question number.

NOTE 2: Rating definitions are provided at the end of this questionnaire.

1. Were the types of personnel (skill and expertise) the contractor used adequate to accomplish the effort without government intervention?

Yes _____ No _______

REMARKS:

2. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience on applying technical knowledge to enter data, extract data, and troubleshoot missing data using the GATES system?

Exceptional______Very Good______Satisfactory______Marginal______Unstisfactory______N/A______

REMARKS:

3. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in applying technical knowledge to enter data, extract data, and troubleshoot missing data using transportation systems (other than GATES)?

REMARKS:

4. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience managing short-term, high volume influxes of data entry, analysis, and reporting requirements in response to special interest programs?

REMARKS:

5. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in developing and analyzing non-standard queries to collect data to determine trends on various data records?

REMARKS:

6. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in creating and maintaining a web site for the display and dissemination of program data?

REMARKS:

7. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in creating and managing a database with the capability to generate weekly, monthly, and annual reports to present to government entities?

REMARKS:

8. How effective was the contractor in providing replacement personnel of the same quality and skills of vacancies in order to minimize disruption to the support effort?

REMARKS:

9. How effective was the contractor in aligning and re-aligning resources (personnel and other) to meet varying workloads?

REMARKS:

10. How would you rate the contractor’s emphasis on customer satisfaction?

REMARKS:

11. How would you rate the contractor's overall technical approach?

REMARKS:

12. How effective was the contractor in accomplishing planned project activities/requirements within the established milestones/timeframes?

REMARKS:

13. How effective was the contractor in accomplishing quality checks to ensure that the final deliverables met the Performance Work Statement requirements?

REMARKS:

14. Were there any penalties for non-performance assessed against the contractor and if so, to what extent?

Yes _____ No _______

REMARKS:

15. Contractor’s Overall performance

REMARKS:

16. Would you award to this contractor in the future?

Yes ___________ No____________ If “no,” why? _____________________________________________________________________________

17. Any additional comments:

REMARKS:

Rating Definitions:

Exceptional - 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.

Very Good - 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.

Satisfactory - 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.

Marginal - 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.

Unsatisfactory - Performance does 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.