4 - PPQ _PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE FA486125R0003.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SABER IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- FA486125R0003
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract solicitation number FA486125R0003 for Nellis Air Force Base, Creech Air Force Base, and Nevada Test and Training Range. The PPQ is designed to evaluate contractor performance across three key areas: quality, schedule, and management, using a rating scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory.
The associated federal contract opportunity reveals this is a competitive HUBZone procurement limited to qualified small businesses, with a maximum ceiling amount between $100M and $250M ($185M specified in one version). The five-year contract will support various engineering and construction projects including carpentry, road repair, roofing, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, demolition, and infrastructure alterations. Task orders are estimated between $15,000 and $4,000,000, with the solicitation anticipated to be issued electronically on SAM.gov around 15 August 2025 and proposals due by 12 November 2025. The contract requires in-house or readily accessible design capabilities for project execution.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104
NELLIS FA4861125R0003 SABER
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
The contractor, which is named below, requires this PPQ to be completed for a proposal for a Solicitation. This solicitation is in support of Nellis AFB, Creech AFB and Nevada Test and Training Range. The solicitation in question is FA4861125R0003 for a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) IDIQ.
Submission of this form is mandatory for the evaluation of Contractor past performance if CPARS are not available. No other form of past performance evaluation will be considered for evaluation.
A primary consideration in our selection process is the contractor’s history of performance of similar efforts. Please make every effort to be thorough in your answers/comments. Return the completed questionnaire to the referenced contractor:_________________ at_____________________________.
Please refer any questions to: Corrine Lemon at (702-652-6196) or (corrine.lemon@us.af.mil)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION OF CONTRACTOR (completed by Offeror) Contractor Name:_______________________________________________________________
CAGE:_______________________ UEI:____________________________________________
Telephone Number:_______________ Point of Contact:_________________________________ B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION (completed by evaluating Contracting Officer) Name:_______________________________________________________________________ Title:________________________________________________________________________ Organization:__________________________________________________________________ Address:_____________________________________________________________________ Telephone_______________________________ Email:_______________________________
C. CONTRACT INFORMATION
Contract Number:______________________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________________________________ Was this contract an Air Force SABER?___________________________________________ Was this contract a MACC or Design Build Contract?________________________________ Period of Performance:____________________ Dollar Amount of Contract:_______________
Description___________________________________________________________________
D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION:
For the section below, please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by highlighting in the appropriate block code using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:
| CODE | PERFORMANCE RATING |
| EX | EXCEPTIONAL - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the benefit of the customer. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. |
| VG | VERY GOOD - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. |
SAT 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.
M MARGINAL - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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.
UNS 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.
Please use the above ratings to describe the contractor’s performance in the following areas:
1. Quality
| Assess the contractor’s performance in terms of quality. Consider how effectively they managed their quality control program and upheld construction standards. This includes their consistency in performing accessory testing, executing the three-phase inspection process, and maintaining thorough Contractor Quality Control (CQC) documentation. The contractor’s ability to promptly identify and correct deficient work reflects their commitment to excellence and accountability. |
| EX |
| VG |
| SAT |
| M |
| UNS |
ATTACHMENT 4- PAST PERFORMANCE
QUESTIONNAIRE FA486125R0003
2. Schedule
| Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance). This rating of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, consider the significance of scheduled events and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions. |
| EX |
| VG |
| SAT |
| M |
| UNS |
3. Management
| Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. |
| EX |
| VG |
| SAT |
| M |
| UNS |
I certify that I am a Contracting Officer or contract professional responsible for the subject contractor evaluation. All information provided is true and valid to the best of my knowledge.
Evaluator’s Signature Date
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .