Attachment 7 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 38 KB Posted

Attached to
Replace Aircraft Fire Trainer Facility North Ramp Andersen Air Force Base Guam Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA524023R0018
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Forces

About this file

This document includes a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal solicitation. The past performance questionnaire is seeking input on a contractor's performance on a previous project to demolish an existing aircraft fire training facility and construct a new facility at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Respondents are asked to provide ratings and comments on the contractor's technical performance, schedule adherence, management, and any contract terminations. Input will be used to evaluate proposals submitted for a new solicitation to replace the aircraft fire trainer facility. The related federal contract opportunity is solicitation number FA524023R0018 from the Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Forces to replace the aircraft fire trainer facility at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Responses to the past performance questionnaire are due by May 19, 2023 and should be returned electronically to the points of contact provided.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 15

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

Controlled Unclassified Information When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) The 36th Contracting Squadron is in the process of competitively selecting a source for a project to replace the Aircraft Fire Training Facility (AFTF) at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The project involves demolishing the existing dilapidated AFTF, removal of all existing utility piping, wiring, and unusable propane lines, and existing rock within the training pit. Additional work includes constructing a wet deck leveling pad, footings and foundation for the new aircraft mock-up, replacement of all utility piping, wiring, propane lines, and drainage system, and installation of the aircraft mock-up. The project magnitude is $1M-$5M.

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 19 May 2023.

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and emailed to darrell.chargualaf@us.af.mil and eddie.pelkey@us.af.mil. 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.

Eddie C. Pelkey Contracting Officer

Attachements :

1. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

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. Program Phase (e.g., Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)):

H. 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. 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):

J. Description of work performed:

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

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

Section 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):

Section 3: Respondent Identification

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

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

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:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the tables 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.

Technical Performance
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the project?

COMMENTS:

Schedule/Timeliness
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

How well did the contractor adhere to the schedule?

Management
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

How well did the contractor integrate and coordinate activities to execute the project?

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 [ click and select an item ] award to them today given that I had a choice.

REMARKS:

[click and pick the date]

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return to: darrell.chargualaf@us.af.mil / eddie.pelkey@us.af.mil / david.white.40@us.af.mil Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 4

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .