Section_J _Attachment_11 _PP_Questionnaire_(table).docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Information Technology Capabilities Contract (ITCC) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4600-14-R-0017
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a contractor under the Information Technology Capabilities Contract (ITCC) II awarded by the Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command. The questionnaire evaluates the contractor's performance on technical requirements such as service center support, end user provisioning, network services, and database support. It also assesses the contractor's management approach, engineering processes, and small business participation. Respondents are asked to rate the contractor's performance on a scale from exceptional to unsatisfactory in these areas and provide narratives for any exceptional, marginal, or unsatisfactory ratings. They are also asked to comment on overall performance and any issues with default, termination, or reservations about future work with the contractor.
11
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Information Technology Capabilities Contract (ITCC) II has more files on GovTribe.
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
ATTACHMENT 11: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Please correct any information below known to be inaccurate:
Reference Contractor’s Name:
Telephone Number:
Address:
Fax Number:
Street
Point of Contact:
City
CAGE Code:
State
Zip
(The government enters the following information based on list of references provided by the Offeror. The Offeror will enter this information if the solicitation requires him to submit questionnaires to the references.)
Project Title and Brief Description of Work:
Contract Number Provided by Offeror:
Dollar Amount:
Contract Period or Dates of Performance Provided by Offeror:
Contractor performed as the: Prime Contractor, Subcontractor, and/or Key Personnel?
Note: If Offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last 3 years, please complete separate evaluation forms for those contracts as well.
B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION:
Please provide the following information for the respondent completing this questionnaire:
Name:
Position / Role on Contract:
Address:
Agency:
Street:
Telephone Number:
City:
Email Address:
State:
Fax Number:
Zip:
C. IF FAXING YOUR RESPONSE, FAX COMPLETED SURVEY FORM TO: 402-294-0430. Please call Mr. Wayne Manke at (402) 232-6571 to advise him of the fax.
D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, VG, S, M and U) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF E, M, or U.
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| VERY GOOD |
| SATISFACTORY |
| MARGINAL |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| NOT APPLICABLE |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance on this element or sub-element, or information was not available. Do not know. |
QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACTOR’S NAME:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
Note: Include this information on each page of the questionnaire form to ensure there is no mix up in information among contracts surveyed for respective primes/subs, etc.
Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.
| M3.2.2.2.1 Technical |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| The offeror provided service center (help desk) support in an environment of at least 7500 network end user devices (computers, printers, etc.). |
| 2. |
| The offeror provided service to the End User Provisioning service in an environment of at least 7500 network end user devices (computers, printers, etc.). |
| 3. |
| The offeror provided Network Services in an environment of at least 7500 network end user devices (computers, printers, etc.). |
| 4. |
| The offeror administered operating systems and hypervisors, and maintained server hardware in an environment of at least 7500 network end user devices (computers, printers, etc.). |
| 5. |
| The offeror provided Database support on different platforms for at least 100 users. |
M3.2.2.2.2 Management Approach
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| The offeror was flexible and capable of meeting the customer’s evolving needs. As contract modifications were required, the offeror worked with the Government to modify the contract in a manner that was fair and reasonable to both parties. |
| 2. |
| The offeror provided a sound staffing approach to adequately manage the contract with properly qualified, security cleared, and certified personnel. |
| 3. |
| The offeror utilized appropriate metrics to measure contract performance. |
| 4. |
| The offeror’s program management processes minimize deliverable errors and ensured on-time deliveries. |
| 5. |
| The offeror’s program management processes ensured all key milestones and key milestone due dates were met. |
| M3.2.2.2.3 Engineering |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| The offeror’s engineering processes ensured Government requirements were met. |
| 2. |
| The offeror’s approach identified the technical impacts of the design, development, test, and implementation/integration to the customer’s enterprise. |
| 3. |
| The offeror’s engineering processes lowered annual total enterprise life cycle sustainment costs. |
| 4. |
| The offeror’s engineering processes ensured errors identified during tests did not reoccur during future test events or implementation. |
| 5. |
| The offeror’s engineering processes minimized implementation errors and produced no implementation failures. |
| 6. |
| The offeror’s engineering processes ensured information assurance was incorporated in the design, development, testing, and implementation/integration for requirements and throughout the life of a system. |
| Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| The offeror met established small business goals. |
| 2. |
| The offeror ensured meaningful work (i.e., mission critical, technology innovation) was offered to their small business subcontractors. |
OVERALL
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| 1. |
| How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? |
| YES |
| NO |
| 2. |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome below. |
| 3. |
| Is the contractor rated in CPARS? |
| 4. |
| Was this a competitive contract? |
For Government Contracts Only: Has this contract been or will it be 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.)
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated E (Exceptional), M (Marginal) or U (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above or if you would like to elaborate on anything else that might be considered significant (use additional sheets, if necessary).
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.
End of questionnaire.
RFP FA4600-14-R-0017
Sect J, Attachment 11
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .