Attachment_3_PPQ.pdf

Attachment 3

For Official Use Only When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Past Performance Questionnaire –

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 5

The 36 Contracting Squadron at Andersen AFB of the Air Force PACAF is in the process of competitively selecting a source for a Joint Mariannas Islands Smart Phone service program. The Governments intent is to establish a single Indefinate Delivery Indefinate Quantity contract for Smart Phones and service with various service option.

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 5 calendar days after your receipt of this letter. 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 30TUjesse.schwarztrauber@us.af.milU30T or Ulauren.laffosse.1@us.af.milU or by hand.

Please call Jesse Schwarztrauber or Lauren Laffosse at 366-4940 or 366-6603 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.

//SIGNED//

JESSE SCHWARZTRAUBER

Contracting Officer http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:jesse.schwarztrauber@us.af.mil

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 5

USection 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

1. Original Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date _________ through ____________

2. Current Schedule (assuming all options exercised):

Beginning Date _________ through ____________

3. Reason for difference (if applicable):

I. Description of work performed:

J. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No

K. Contractor’s Role: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor ☐ Key Personnel

USection 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

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

USection 3: Respondent Identification

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

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

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 5

D. Respondent’s position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO, etc.):

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

F. Other suggested points of contact:

USection 4: Performance Information

In the questions below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by checking the appropriate box under 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:

UCodeU UPerformance 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.

UNoteU: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” but instead include probing and direct questions to draw out the required information desired.

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 5

A. Performance – Rate the Offeror’s performance for the following subfactors:

1. Subfactor – System Performance on Guam

How well did the contractors system provide service/coverage to meet your requirements on the island of Guam?

Were there any areas that cellular service was unavailable?

☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A

USUPPORTING INFORMATIONU:

2. Subfactor – System Performance Globally

How well did the contractors system provide service/coverage to meet your requirements off the island of Guam?

Were there any areas that cellular service was unavailable?

3. Subfactor – System Performance Improvements

How well did the contractor improve/attempt to improve system performance in areas of low performance once identified? How quickly did the contractor provide resolution to areas of low performance?

4. Subfactor - Delivery schedule

How well did the contractor deliver the cellular equipment in accordance with your contract? Were there delays or equipment non-availability?

5. Subfactor – Customer Service

How well did the contractor provide customer service and problem resolution?

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 5

6. Subfactor – Reports

How well did the contractor provide reports customized to your requirement to easily identify costs and usage?

REMARKS:

B. 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).

C. Overall Quality Rating: What is your overall satisfaction with the contractors ability to provide cellular service and equipment.

REMARKS:

35T35T

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

E-Mail to: 30TUjesse.schwarztrauber@us.af.milU30T or Ulauren.laffosse.1@us.af.mil mailto:jesse.schwarztrauber@us.af.mil