Attachment 6 - Past Perf Questionnaire.docx

DOCX document 42 KB Posted

Attached to
Repair/Renovate B1655 Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA667524R0004
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Reserve Command

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a competitively awarded federal construction contract to renovate a building at NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas. The questionnaire requests information from organizations that have worked with the offeror, such as the contractor's ability to manage personnel, follow quality control procedures, meet schedules, and cooperate with government personnel. It provides details on the contract, including the contract number, type, period of performance, dollar value, and work performed. Respondents are asked to rate the contractor's performance across various criteria using a defined performance rating scale. The questionnaire also includes questions about the contractor's compliance with FAR clauses related to small business subcontracting. The completed questionnaire will become part of the official source selection records for this contract opportunity.

The related federal contract opportunity is for the repair and renovation of Air Force Maintenance Low Observable (LO), Metals Tech and Structures Shops Building #1655 at NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas. The U.S. Air Force Reserve Command anticipates releasing a solicitation for this requirement on a tentative date, with the work including demolition, construction, renovation, and incidental related work in compliance with A&E produced design specifications and drawings.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Repair/Renovate B1655, newest first.
File Type Posted
Attachment 2 - B1655 Specifications.pdf PDF
Attachment 7 - B1655 Site Visit Sign-in Sheet .pdf PDF
Attachment 4 - WD_TX20240270_04052024.pdf PDF
Attachment 1 - B1655 Drawings - CUI.pdf PDF
Attachment 5 - B1655_RFI.pdf PDF
Attachment 3 - B1655 Submittal Register.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment 7 - B1655 Site Visit Sign-in Sheet .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

Text version

For Official Use Only When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire The 301st Contracting Flight of the Air Force Reserve Command is in the process of competitively selecting a source for a construction project to renovate a Building at NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas.

One of the considerations in 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. In order to meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than the solicitation’s closing date and time. 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 michael.bradberry.1@us.af.mil or by hand (Attention: Michael C. Bradberry). Please email or call Michael Bradberry at 817-782-5668 if you have any questions. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official source selection records.

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.

Robert J. Walz Contracting Officer

1 Atch Past Performance Questionnaire

Section 1: Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract 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:

K. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No

L. Contractor’s Role: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Subcontractor ☐ Key Personnel

Note: If offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last three (3) years, please complete separate Past Performance Questionnaire forms for those contracts as well.

Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of work performed 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/fax number/e-mail address:

D. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:

E. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the table 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.

The Contractor:
E
V
S
M
U
N/A

1. Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2. Demonstrated the ability to hire, maintain, and replace, if necessary, qualified personnel during the contract period.

3. Delegated authority to project managers and supervisors commensurate with contract requirements.

4. Home office participated in solving significant local problems.

5. Followed approved quality control plan.

6. Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

7. Corrected deficiencies in timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.

8. Provided timely resolution of contract discrepancies.

9. Identified problems as they occurred.

10. Suggested alternative approaches to problems.

11. Displayed initiative to solve problems.

12. Developed realistic progress schedules.

13. Met established project schedules.

14. Provided timely resolution of warranty defects.

15. Was responsive to contract changes.

16. Provided adequate project supervision.

17. Obtained consent of surety for increases in bonding as work-in-progress increased.

18. Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner.

19. Provided accurate and complete line item cost proposals including all aspects of work required for each task.

20. Cooperated with Government personnel after award.

21. Met or exceeded small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan.

22. How would you rate the contractor's overall performance on this contract?

23. Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain.

EXPLANATION:

☐ Yes ☐ No

24. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain.

EXPLANATION:

☐ Yes ☐ No

IF THIS WAS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT:

Did this contract include FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, did the contractor comply with the clause? Please explain.

Did this contract include FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, did the contractor comply with the clause? Please explain.

Additional remarks:

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Mailing Address:

301 CONF/PK, 1660 Lyons Drive, NAS Fort Worth JRB, TX 76127

E-Mail to: michael.bradberry.1@us.af.mil For Official Use Only Page 7 of 7

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