Atch_L-2_Cov_Ltr_ _PPQ_Revised.docx
DOCX document 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA5641-15-R-0001
About this file
Revised Atch L-2
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
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 Multinational Aircrew Electronic Warfare Tactics Facility contract (POLYGONE II). 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 1400 hours Central European Time, 17 Feb 2015, at the following e-mail addresses: justin.truitt.1@us.af.mil; kristy.truitt@us.af.mil and stefan.scherer.1.de@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 POLYGONE II Points of Contact, Mr. Justin R. Truitt; Ms. Kristy L. Truitt and Mr. Stefan Scherer, 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 PCOs Mr. Justin Truitt or Ms. Kristy L. Truitt at +49 (0)631-536-7123, or the Contract Specialist, Mr. Stefan Scherer, at +49 (0)631-536-8405.
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 R. TRUITT | Procuring 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.
FA5641-15-R-0001
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:
| Extent 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 extend 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. |
| When the contractor replaces parts to fix equipment, rate how effective the part replacement is/was in returning the system to operational status? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 21. |
| Rate how well the contractor complie(s/d) with maintenance documentation? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 22. |
| Rate how well the contractor perform(s/ed) facilities maintenance? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 23. |
| How do you rate the contractor’s corporate quality plans, policies and procedures? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 24. |
| Rate how complete the contractor’s quality procedures are and how well the employees follow them? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 25. |
| Rate how responsive the contractor’s quality program was/is in identifying, correcting, and preventing initial and recurring contract discrepancies. |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 26. |
| Rate how timely supply accounts were established. |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 27. |
| Rate how well the contractor dos/did safeguard, track, and account for Government Furnished Property. |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 28. |
| Rate how well the contractor’s supply system executed reimbursable purchases (purchases outside the supply system) to ensure best value for the purchase. |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 29. |
| Rate how well the contractor’s supply system does/did manage parts inventories, track critical parts usage and provide timely, accurate status of parts in-use and on-order? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 30. |
| Rate the effectiveness of the contractor’s configuration management system for incorporating technical order and publication changes. |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 31. |
| How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance? |
Remarks:
A U
UNK
| 32. |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “Remarks.” |
Remarks:
YES
NO
| 33. |
| 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 .