Attachment 08 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).docx

DOCX document 48 KB Posted

Attached to
AJJW 25-1071M Repair Marbo BPS Tank 2, Wells 1 and 3
Solicitation number
FA524025R0001
Issued by

About this file

The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for a design-build contract to repair the Marbo Bulk Pumping Station (BPS) at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The project, solicited under FA524025R0001, involves comprehensive improvements to BPS Tank 2, Wells 1 & 3, including installation of a dual pump system, rehabilitation of chlorination and pump rooms, tank wall repairs, instrumentation upgrades, and site improvements. The contract is a 100% Small Business HUBZone set-aside with a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) type, and the project magnitude ranges between $20-$100 million with a performance period of 800 calendar days.

Key dates include a site visit on 07 May 2025 at 0900 ChST, Request for Information deadline of 16 May 2025 at 1600 hours ChST, and a past performance questionnaire response deadline of 30 May 2025 at 2:00 pm ChST. The solicitation is being managed by the 36th Contracting Squadron of the Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Forces, with proposals to be submitted electronically through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). The NAICS code is 237110 with a small business size standard of $45 million, and the work includes electrical upgrades, video surveillance, intrusion detection, and comprehensive infrastructure rehabilitation.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_23 May 2025.pdf PDF
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_19 May 2025.pdf PDF
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_14 May 2025.pdf PDF
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_9 May 2025.pdf PDF
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_1 May 2025.pdf PDF
RFI - QA FA524025R0001_29 April 2025.pdf PDF
Solicitation Amendment FA524025R00010002 SF 30.pdf PDF
Attachment 08 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)_Rev 24Apr25.docx DOCX document
Solicitation Amendment - FA524025R00010002.pdf PDF
Solicitation Amendment - FA524025R00010001.pdf PDF
Solicitation Amendment FA524025R00010001 SF 30.pdf PDF
Attachment 04 - Site Location Map.pdf PDF
Attachment 07 - Past Performance Fact Sheet.docx DOCX document
Attachment 05 - Attach A - 36 CES Contractors BUILDER Inventory Sheet Template.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment 13 - Project Requirement Price Schedule.pdf PDF
Attachment 09 - AAFB Installation Facilities Standards (IFS).pdf PDF
Attachment 10 - Wage Determination (GU20250001).pdf PDF
Attachment 01 - Statement of Work (SOW) dated 03 February 2025.pdf PDF
Attachment 12 - PIEE Proposal Manager Guide.pdf PDF
Attachment 02 - AJJW 25-1071M 35 Percent Concept Design dated 12 July 2024.pdf PDF
Solicitation - FA524025R0001.pdf PDF
Attachment 03 - AJJW 25-1071M 35 Percent Design Submittal dated 12 July 2024.pdf PDF
Attachment 06 - Attach B - AADB Contractor Antiterroism Awareness.pdf PDF
Attachment 11 - Common Construction Prevailing Wage Rates for Guam.pdf PDF
Show all 24

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 Marbo Bulk Pumping Station (BPS) Tank 2 and Wells 1 & 3 AAFB, GU. The Contractor shall design and construct any required supporting facilities, site layout, grading and drainage, and site utilities as described in the contract documents. Floor plans along with other design information shown in this document are "typical" and are included to communicate requirements. They do not relieve the Contractor from providing a detailed design. The Contractor shall develop and submit a final layout for all facilities based on the known requirements taking into consideration the utilities to be extended to the facilities, maintaining positive drainage and minimizing site work. In accordance with FAR 36.204(h) and DFARS 236.204(ii) the magnitude of this project is between $20,000,000 and $100,000,000.

One of the considerations in the 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. To meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than 30 May 2025 by 2:00pm (ChST).

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and e-mailed to all of the following: katrina.pangelinan@us.af.mil, francyn.salas@us.af.mil, and eddie.pelkey@us.af.mil . Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official Source Selection records. Please title the email: PPQ – FA524025R0001 – Contractor Name 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.

Katrina J. Pangelinan Contracting Officer

Attachments:

1. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Section 1: Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract Number and/or Task Order 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. *Please describe design requirements and any facets of construction associated with the project, if possible:

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: katrina.pangelinan@us.af.mil, troy_joseph.manibusan@us.af.mil, jennifer.taitague@us.af.mil

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 4

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