Atch_L-2_Cov_Ltr_ _PPQ.docx

DOCX document 42 KB Posted

Attached to
Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) training Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA5641-14-R-0003
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Installation and Mission Support Center Installation Contracting Agency

About this file

From the source

Atach L-2

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) training, newest first.
File Type Posted
RFP_Questions_Upload.pdf PDF
Atch_L-1_PPID.docx DOCX document
Atch_L-3_Subcontract_Consent _Client_Auth_Ltr.docx DOCX document
FA5641-14-R-0003_RFP_13_Aug_14.pdf PDF
PWS_-_JTAC_01_Aug_14.pdf PDF
JTAC_Synopsis.pdf PDF

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
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

FROM: 764th Specialized Contracting Squadron (764 SCONS) Unit 3024

APO AE 09021

SUBJECT: Request for Past Performance Evaluation

1. 764 SCONS is in the process of conducting a source selection for Operations, Maintenance & Support (OM&S) for the USAFE portion of the Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) training. One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offeror’s past performance on contracts which reflect the offeror’s ability to perform. The Government depends on information received from those who have first hand information, in order to evaluate the offeror’s past performance.

2. Areas of interest in the offerors past performance are summarized in the electronic past performance questionnaire e-mailed to you by the offeror.

3. Although this questionnaire was distributed to you by the offeror/contractor, it is important you electronically complete the questionnaire and forward it directly to the Government Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), not later than 24 Sep 2014, at the following e-mail address: justin.truitt.1@us.af.mil and charles.gritzmacher.1@us.af.mil. If you are unable to electronically submit the questionnaire to the e-mail address above, mailed copies will be accepted and can be sent to the attention of JTAC Points of Contact, Mr. Justin R. Truitt, and Mr. Charles Gritzmacher, utilizing above APO address.

4. DO NOT RETURN OR E-MAIL THE QUESTIONNAIRES BACK TO THE OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR! Once the questionnaire is filled out, it becomes source selection sensitive and needs to be handled accordingly. If you have any concerns please contact the PCO Mr. Justin Truitt at +49 (0)631-536-7123, or the Contract Specialist, Mr. Charlie Gritzmacher, at +49 (0)631-536-7159.

5. Your help is greatly appreciated and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this source selection.

Sincerely,

//Signed//
JUSTIN TRUITTProcuring Contracting Officer

Atch Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

When Filled In This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION I: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Please complete the following information on the contract in which you are involved.

FA5641-14-R-0003

Section J, Attachment L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire

Customer/Agency Name:

Contract Number:
Contractor:
Cage Code
Contract Type:|_| Firm-Fixed Price|_| Independent Contract
(Please check one box from|_| Cost Plus Fixed Fee|_| IDIQ Contract
each column)|_| Labor Hours
|_| Time and Material
|_| Other, Specify:

Initial Contract Amount:

Current/Final Contract Amount:

If amounts are different please explain:

IDIQ Contract Ceiling

if applicable:
Status:|_| Active|_| Complete

Award Date:

Period of Performance (incl. unexercised options): Start: End:

Geographic Location of Performance:

Extend of Competition:|_| Full and Open|_| Full and Open after Exclusion of Sources
|_| Other than Full and Open

Provide a description of services provided.

Describe the type and extent of subcontracting.

SECTION II: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

Please provide information for the primary individuals completing this survey.

Name:
Office Identifier:
Telephone Number:
Mailing Address:
Email Address:
Relationship to Contract:

SECTION III: EVALUATION

Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (A, U and UNK) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF U.

Rating
Definition
Acceptable (A)
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Unacceptable (U)
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown (UNK)
In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above.

* Please explain the circumstances of any “unsatisfactory” rating in the “Remarks” section, available at the end of this document, by referencing the appropriate Question Number.

A
U *
UNK
1.
Rate how well the contractor transitioned into assuming full performance responsibility from the incumbent contractor.

Remarks:

|_|
|_|
|_|
2.
Rate how well the contractor recruited and provided qualified management and key personnel during the transition period and throughout the contract performance period.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

3.
Rate how well the contractor provided adequate, competent and qualified technical personnel capable of meeting contract requirements throughout the performance period of the contract.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

4.
Rate how well the contractor’s top management was involved and committed to program success during the transition period and throughout the period of the contract.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

5.
Rate how effective the contactor was in meeting Cost/Price performance targets and controlling contingencies (i.e. changes, claims, request for equitable adjustments, request for proposals, etc.).

Remarks:

A U

UNK

6.
Rate how effective the contractor’s management of subcontracts was/is.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

7.
Rate how timely and sufficient the contractor’s resources (manning levels, skill mix, equipment, etc.) were/are to meet contract requirements (technical, management, and contractual).

Remarks:

A U

UNK

8.
Rate how well the contractor respond(s/ed) to and act(s/ed) on customer feedback.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

9.
Rate how well the contractor perform(s/ed) the terms of the contract within the contractually agreed price.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

10.
Rate how well the contractor demonstrate(s/d) a reasonable and cooperative business relationship with the Government’s Program Management and Contract Management teams.

Remarks:

A

U

UNK

11.
Rate the effectiveness of the contractor’s security program (Please annotate the number of reportable security incidents, if applicable).

Remarks:

A U

UNK

12.
Rate the effectiveness of the contractor’s safety program to ensure compliance with federal, state and local regulations.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

13.
Rate the adequacy of the contractor’s environmental program, oversight, compliance, and management.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

14.
Rate how effective the contractor’s approach to resolving labor disputes/disagreements was/is.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

15.
If the contractor was required to perform over and above work outside basic contract requirements, rate how accurate and reasonable the contractor’s cost estimate was.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

16.
Rate how timely and effective the contractor’s responses to and resolution of technical problems were/are.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

17.
Rate how flexible, cooperative, and reasonable the contractor was/is in meeting mission requirements, particularly during short-notice mission changes and surge missions.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

18.
Rate how innovative the contractor was/is in performing the technical aspects of the contract and resolving problems.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

19.

Rate how well the contractor prioritize(s/d) maintenance actions (including preventative maintenance) to meet customer needs.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

20.
How do you rate the contractor’s corporate quality plans, policies and procedures?

Remarks:

A U

UNK

21.
Rate how complete the contractor’s quality procedures are and how well the employees follow them?

Remarks:

A U

UNK

22.
Rate how responsive the contractor’s quality program was/is in identifying, correcting, and preventing initial and recurring contract discrepancies.

Remarks:

A U

UNK

23.
How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance?

Remarks:

A U

UNK

24.
Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “Remarks.”

Remarks:

YES

NO

25.
Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “Remarks” below.

YES

NO

Remarks:

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