Atch_4_-_PPQ.pdf

Past Performance Cover Letter/Questionnaire

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW

FAR

2.101 AND 3.104

FA5000-17-T-0009

SUBJECT: Request for Past Performance Evaluation

TO:

is currently participating as a quoter in response to the Government’s Request for Quotation No. FA5000-17-T-0009 for a firm fixed price Hangar Door Maintenance contract at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

The government will be selecting contractors for this project based on various selection factors. One of the key factors in the government’s final decision is past performance. To assist the government in its assessment of contractor past performance, we are required to identify previous projects and clients who are familiar with our past work.

As one of our customers for past contracting work on , we are requesting that you complete the attached questionnaire regarding our past performance. This letter also authorizes you to discuss our past performance with the government and to release information regarding our past performance to the government.

Your prompt attention in completing the attached questionnaire will ensure we receive full consideration in this competition. Please return the completed form to the government representative point of contact identified below, to arrive no later than the deadline for receipt of quotations at

ADST on .

Please use the point of contact information below to mail or email the completed questionnaire:

- by email to:

nicholas.parsons.2@us.af.mil , anna_maria.smith@us.af.mil & 673CONS.LGCB.Acquisition@us.af.mil

Thank you for your assistance.

(Signature and title of individual having the authority to sign for and legally bind the quoter.)

Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire mailto:nicholas.parsons.2@us.af.mil mailto:anna_maria.smith@us.af.mil mailto:673CONS.LGCB.Acquisition@us.af.mil

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION A - CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: Quoter is to complete this section prior to sending this form to each reference listed on the Past and Present Performance References form (Attachment 5)

CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: CAGE

CODE: DUNS

POINT OF CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER:

CONTRACT NUMBER: CONTRACT TITLE:

SECTION B - RESPONDENT INFORMATION: To be completed by each reference providing information in Sections C & E. This is a 3-page questionnaire---please complete all 3 pages.

TYPED/PRINTED NAME: TITLE: COMPANY/ORGANIZATION:

ADDRESS (Street, City, State, and Zip Code): TELEPHONE NUMBER (to include area code):

FAX NUMBER (to include area code):

E-MAIL ADDRESS: SIGNATAURE: DATE:

RETURN COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE INDIVIDUALS LISTED BELOW:

POINT OF CONTACT AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:

Anna Maria Smith -- anna_maria.smith@us.af.mil Nicholas Parsons - nicholas.parsons.2@us.af.mil

MAILING ADDRESS:

673 CONS/LGCB

10480 Sijan Ave, Ste 363

JBER, AK 99506

TELEPHON

E NUMBERS

VOICE: (907)

552- 5579 or 552-7563

COMPLETE & RETURN PRIOR TO .

Alaska Standard Time (ADST)

SECTION C - CONTRACT SPECIFICS: To be completed by each reference. Some of this information is repeat from Section A and is requested only to confirm the information.

CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT TYPE (Firm- Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursement, etc.):

COMPETITIVE CONTRACT?

YES NO

INITIAL CONTRACT VALUE: CURRENT/FINAL

CONTRACT VALUE:

TOTAL HANGAR DOOR MAINTENANCE VALUE

CONTRACT TITLE: CONTRACT BEING EVALUATED AS (indicate which):

PRIME CONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

REASON FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INITIAL AND CURRENT/FINAL CONTRACT COSTS:

mailto:anna_maria.smith@us.af.mil mailto:nicholas.parsons.2@us.af.mil

SECTION D - EVALUATION CONFIDENCE RATING SCALE:

RATING DEFINITION

S Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor tookeffective corrective action.

U Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NA Not Applicable Used if the rating(s) are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.

SECTION E: CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE RATINGS: To be completed by each reference using the rating scale in Section D, Yes/No answers, or a brief response as indicated.

RECENCY, RELEVANCY & ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

QUESTIONS NO YES

1. Is your service contract for hangar door maintenance within the last five (5) years?

2. Does your hangar door maintenance & service contract include emergency services?

3. Does your hangar door maintenance & service contract include routine service calls?

4. What is the approximate number of doors that are inspected and/or repaired on your hangar door contract?

0 to 10 doors 11 to 20 doors 21 to 29 doors 30 or more

5. Of the doors identified in Question 4, what are the door types and their age range (e.g. MEGA Doors 1990-1998, McKee 2012, Premier 2008- 2010, etc.)?

QUALITY OF SERVICE S U NA

6. How would you rate the contractor's ability to perform hangar door maintenance services outlined in your Performance Work Statement, Statement of Work, or equivalent requirements document?

7. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to proactively respond, recognize, resolve unanticipated difficulties, correct deficiencies, re‐performance, or emergencies in the manner consistent with the contract’s quality control procedure?

8. How well did the contractor provide for sufficient and qualified manpower in the performance of this contract?

9. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to remain on schedule, meet specific response times, and scheduled time frames for completion of specific tasks while still providing quality service?

MANAGEMENT S U NA

10. How would you rate the contractor’s execution plan, direct, integrate the contract workload, and quality control plan to meet requirements in a timely and effective manner?

11. How would you rate the contractor's ability to ensure that a project manager with sufficient decision‐making authority was consistently available when work was performed?

12. How would you rate the contractor’s management to effectively maintain and resolve scheduled or unscheduled services (disruption of services) in a military/commercial environment?

13. How would you rate the contractor’s reports‐‐documentation accuracy, completeness and satisfactory to the users?

14. How would you rate the contractor's overall service performance and effectiveness in managing the contract (including ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the program)?

OTHER S U NA

15. How would you rate the contractor’s compliance with safety, health, security and environmental requirements?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT S U NA

16. Throughout the life of the contract, What Quality Assessment Rating would you assign the contractor’s performance (in accordance with the rating definition provided above)?

Evaluator's Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance