Amendment 4 - Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire_10 JUL 25.docx
DOCX document 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Amendment 4 - Solicitation - Spangdahlem Local Drayage Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA560625Q0003
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a Local Drayage solicitation issued by the 52nd Contracting Squadron of the Air Force USAFE at Spangdahlem Air Base. The contract requires a vendor to provide personnel, equipment, licenses, permits, and transportation services to assemble, disassemble, transfer, transport, and deliver government-owned furnishings both on-base and off-base, including warehouse-to-warehouse moves. The solicitation (FA560625Q0003) seeks to evaluate potential contractors' past performance, with respondents required to complete a detailed questionnaire rating the offeror's technical performance, program management, cost performance, employee retention, and other key operational capabilities.
The questionnaire requires recipients to provide comprehensive performance ratings using a scale from Exceptional (E) to Unsatisfactory (U) across multiple evaluation categories. Respondents must return the completed questionnaire within 10 calendar days to Contracting Officer Angelo Minisini and 1st Lt Camille Bowen via email, with the completed document becoming part of the official contract records. The evaluation will help the Air Force determine the most qualified vendor for the local drayage requirement, with a focus on the contractor's ability to effectively manage complex transportation and logistics services for government-owned furnishings at Spangdahlem Air Base.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 3 - Local Drayage Question Responses - FA560625Q0003.pdf | ||
| Amendment 2 - Local Drayage Question Responses - FA560625Q0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Local Drayage Q and A.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - FA560625Q0003 Final.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Historical Data 2021-2024.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document |
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
Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Local Drayage Solicitation **Quoter responsible for distribution and submission of completed Past Performance Questionnaires to the Contracting Office
The 52nd Contracting Squadron of the Air Force USAFE is in the process of competitively selecting an awardee for a Local Drayage requirement. The awardee will be responsible for providing all personnel, equipment, power tools, all types of licenses and permits, materials, supervision, supplies, services, and transportation necessary to assemble, disassemble, transfer, transport, issue, pick-up, load / unload at Warehouse 166 and deliver Government-owned furnishings as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Spangdahlem Air Base (SAB) (on-base and off-base units, Warehouse to Warehouse moves, and GSUs).
One of the considerations in offer evaluation is the verification of the quoters' past performance on contracts or other work efforts which reflect the quoter’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 quoter, for the evaluation of the quoter'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 10 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 camille.bowen.1@us.af.mil and angelo.minisini@us.af.mil. Please contact either of these individuals if you have any questions. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official contract records.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated, and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this contract award.
Angelo Minisini, CIV, USAF Contracting Officer
1 Attachment :
1. Past Performance Questionnaire
Section 1: Contract Identification
A. Contractor (Company/Division):
B. Contractor Cage Code:
C. Contract Number:
E. Program Title:
F. Brief Program Description:
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 |
T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
T2. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?
| Program Management |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
P1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?
P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?
P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?
P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?
P5. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?
P6. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of efforts?
P7. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?
P8. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?
P9. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?
| Transition / Phase-in |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
TP1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel?
| Employee Retention / Attraction |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
E1. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort?
E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?
| Cost Performance |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
C1. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?
C2. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?
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 he promised in his proposal, I [ click and select an item ] award to him today given that I had a choice.
REMARKS:
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.
[click and pick the date]
Respondent’s Signature Date
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
E-Mail to: 1st Lt Camille Bowen (camille.bowen.1@us.af.mil) & Angelo Minisini (angelo.minisini@us.af.mil)
Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 8
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .