FA564120R0003_-_JTAC_CAS_-_Atch_L-1_Cov_Ltr_and_PPQ.pdf
PDF 516 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA564120R0003
About this file
This document includes a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract solicitation. The past performance questionnaire requests evaluations of a contractor's performance on a previous contract to provide Joint Terminal Attack Controller and Close Air Support training. It asks evaluators to rate the contractor's transition, staffing, equipment provision, management involvement, customer responsiveness, flexibility and overall performance. The federal contract solicitation seeks proposals to provide up to 320 hours per year of tactically relevant aircraft and support for JTAC and CAS training to the US Air Force in Europe and subordinate units. Offerors must submit any questions by November 8, 2019. The single award contract would include a 5-month base period and five 1-year option periods for hourly, monthly or unit priced services.
FA564120R0003 - JTAC CAS - Atch L-1 Cov Ltr and PPQ
View the file
Other files
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
FA564120RA003
Section J, Attachment L-1 Past
Performance Questionnaire
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 Joint Terminal Attack Controller
(JTAC) and Close Air Support 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 firsthand 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 02 December 2019, at the following e-mail address:
nathaniel.searing@us.af.mil and antje.veit.de@us.af.mil.
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. Nathaniel Searing, at +49
(0) 631-536-5286 or nathaniel.searing@us.af.mil. (
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//
NATHANIEL SEARING
Contracting Officer
Atch
Past and Present Performance Questionnaire
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.
Customer/Agency Name:
Contract Number:
Contractor:
Cage Code
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:
Provide a description of services provided.
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:
file:///D:/far/Far02.doc%23T2101 file:///D:/far/FAR03.DOC%23b3104
Performance Questionnaire
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) The offeror successfully performed and met or exceeded contractual requirements related to this element or sub-element of performance.
If/when minor problems arose, the offeror employed effective corrective actions and ensure successful overall performance.
Unacceptable (U) The offeror did not successfully perform and meet contractual requirements related to this element or sub-element of performance.
Not Applicable
(N/A)
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 * N/A
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 pilots/aircrew during the transition period and throughout the contract performance period.
Remarks:
A U UNK
3. Rate how well the contractor provided and maintained required aircraft and other required equipment during the transition period and throughout the contract performance period.
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
FA564119RA006
Section J, Attachment L-1
Past Performance Questionnaire
5. Rate how well the contractor respond(s/ed) to and act(s/ed) on customer feedback.
Remarks:
A U UNK
6. 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
7. How do you rate the contractor’s quality plans, policies and procedures?
Remarks:
A U UNK
8. How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance?
Remarks:
A U UNK
23. Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “Remarks.”
Remarks:
YES NO
24. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in
“Remarks” below.
YES NO
25.
Remarks:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .