Atch 5 Past and Present Performance Questionnaire 20230814.docx

Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

The 30th Contracting Squadron (30 CONS) at Vandenberg Space Force Base (SFB) is in the process of competitively selecting a source for 377 Test Evaluation Group (TEG) Launch Support Services (LSS) contract. The contractor will perform launch facility refurbishment services at Vandenberg SFB.

Request you provide the following information on the contractor's present and past performance by placing an X in the space provided by the most appropriate response. If you wish to elaborate on your answer, please provide comments on the lines provided after each question. If more space is needed, continue your comments on a separate sheet of paper and attach it to this questionnaire prior to submittal to 30 CONS/PKB. You are asked to provide frank, concise comments, regarding your overall assessment of the contractor's performance on the contract identified.

One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offerors' past performance on contracts or other work efforts which reflect the offeror's ability to perform on the proposed effort. We depend on information received from organizations such as yours, which have had first-hand experience with the offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts or work efforts.

Our areas of interest regarding the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. In order to meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than 24 Aug 2023 at 12:00PM PST. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of negotiations.

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and e-mailed to eileen.castro@spaceforce.mil and charles.richardson.16@spaceforce.mil. Please email the aforementioned if you have any questions. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official Source Selection records.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated, and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this Source Selection.

Charles C. Richardson Contracting Officer

Atch Past Performance Questionnaire

377 TEST EVALUATION GROUP LAUNCH SUPPORT SERVICES PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1 : Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract Number:

D. Contract Type (e.g., FFP, FPIF, CPIF, CPFF, etc.):

E. Program Title:

F. Brief Program Description:

G. Period of Performance:

H. Contract Dollar Value:

1. Original maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $

3. Reasons for difference between original and current contract dollar value (if applicable):

I. Description of work performed:

Note: If offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last five (5) years, please complete separate Past Performance Questionnaire forms for those contracts as well.

Section 2 : Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of work performed under this contract (i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands):

Section 3 : Respondent Identification

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

C. Respondent’s phone/fax number/e-mail address:

D. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:

E. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the table below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question. Provide supporting information for each response in the space provided. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. The performance rating scale is defined as follows:

Code Performance Rating

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

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

S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance 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.

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

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

1. How well did the contractor adhere to the launch facility refurbishment and maintenance requirements or execution schedule?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2. How well did the contractor adapt to changing needs, such as emergencies or delays due to weather, natural disaster or Pandemic related events?

3. How well did the contractor support special events, such as schedule surges due to space launches, exercises, installation open houses, etc.?

4. Is the contractor responsive to short notice changes? SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

5. How well did the contractor implement current quality control processes?

6. How well did the contractor comply with regulatory guidance such as local, state and federal guidelines?

1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and perform 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 contract requirements?

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

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

7. Were any letters of concern, show cause or cure notices required to be issued during performance of this contract? If so, please describe the issue and how the contractor responded to resolve the issue.

1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel? SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2. How effective was the contractor in maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts?

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

E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?

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: GENERAL COMMENT

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what they promised in their proposal, I ____________ award to him today given that I had a choice.

Additional remarks:

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Email Instructions:

TO: 30 CONS/PKB

ATTN: Eileen Castro

E-mail to: eileen.castro@spaceforce.mil cc: charles.richardson.16@spaceforce.mil

FA4610-23-R-0001

Attachment 5 image2.png image3.png image30.png image4.png image1.jpg