Attachment 7 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AJJY 23-1030 Repair Electrical and Fire Suppression at Kitchen and Upgrade Fire Alarm System B26006
- Solicitation number
- FA524023R0022
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a firm competing for a contract to repair electrical and fire suppression systems at Building B26006 at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. The project scope includes upgrading the fire alarm system, inspecting and replacing fire suppression components, replacing the kitchen exhaust fans, and repairing ceiling damage. The contract value is estimated between $1 million and $5 million. Respondents are requested to provide ratings and comments on the contractor's technical performance, schedule adherence, management skills, and any contract terminations by [date redacted] to Eddie Pelkey at the 36th Contracting Squadron at Andersen Air Force Base. The related federal contract opportunity is solicitation number FA524023R0022 for repairs at Building B26006 issued by the Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Forces.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
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 Repair Electrical and Fire Suppression at Kitchen and Upgrade Fire Alarm System, B26006 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The projects renovations will be dependent on the results of an electrical survey, completed by the contractor, of the entire B26006 facility. The survey will update electrical documentation outdated by over three decades. If the current electrical system cannot support the new equipment, an appropriate upgrade of the electrical capabilities will be included in the renovations. The remainder of renovations include replacing the fire alarm system and degraded portions of the fire suppression, inspecting and, if needed, replacing Ansul System Fire Suppression components shall be in compliance with UFC 03-601-2, replacing the kitchen exhaust fans, and repairing any damage to the ceiling. 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
To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and emailed to ethan.langas.1@us.af.mil, jennifer.taitague@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 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:ethan.langas.1@us.af.mil, jennifer.taitague@us.af.mil / eddie.pelkey@us.af.mil / katrina.pangelinan@us.af.mil Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .