Attachment 07 PADELS PPQ.pdf

SUPERIOR SERVICE … CIVIL SUPPORT … CONTINGENCY RESPONSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14 October 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

FROM: AFDW/PKH

SUBJECT: Past Performance Cover Letter for Solicitation#: FA701420R0005

1. The Air Force District of Washington (AFDW), Contracting Directorate (PK), Secretary of the Air Force Enterprise Support Division, will be conducting a competitive source selection for A2/6, Intelligence, Surveillance,Reconnaissance, and Communications.

2. One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offeror's 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.

3. 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 12:00PM EST, 13 December 2019. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of evaluations.

4. Fill out the questionnaire electronically and e-mail to Settima M Harton at and Amanda R.

McCray at usaf.jbanafw.afdw-staff.mbx.afdw-pke@mail.mil. 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.

AMANDA R. MCCRAY, NH-IV, DAF

Contracting Officer, AFDW/PKH

FA7014-20-R-0005

Attachment 04 mailto:blakeley.d.powell.ctr@mail.mil mailto:amanda.r.mccray.civ@mail.mil

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 2.101 & 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

a. Contractor:

b. Contractor Cage Code:

c. Contract number:

d. Contract type:

e. Was this a competitive contract? Yes ____ No _____

f. Period of performance:

g. Initial contract cost:

h. Current/final contract cost:

i. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

j. Description of service provided:

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: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

a. Evaluator's name:

b. Evaluator's title:

FA7014-20-R-0005

Attachment 04

c. Evaluator's phone/fax number:

d. Length of time (number of years/months) evaluator worked on subject contract:

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

E

EXCEPTIONAL – During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level.

Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

V

VERY GOOD – During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

S

SATISFACTORY – During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level. Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

M

MARGINAL – During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance.

There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U

UNSATISFACTORY – During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

Technical Performance E V S M U N/A T1. How effective was the contractor in developing your organization’s Strategic Communications Plan and how successful was the plan? (Please elaborate) T2. How effective was the contractor in identifying key messages and the best communications channels for your organization?

FA7014-20-R-0005

T3. What was the process the contractor used to continually assess and improve your organization’s Strategic Communications Plan and how effective was it?

(Please elaborate) T4. How did the contractor prepare your organization’s communicators (senior leaders) for successful outcomes in every strategic communications engagement and how effective was their approach? (Please elaborate) T5. What parts of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process (case development, case execution, case implementation, and case closure) did the contractor support and how effective were they in their support?

(Please elaborate) T6. What US Government agencies/organizations did the contractor coordinate with in their FMS support and how effective were they in doing so? (Please elaborate) T7. How effective was the contractor in providing FMS, Building Partner Capacity or Section 1206 policy, process, and program management recommendations in order to ensure effective support to Combatant Commander’s Counter Terrorism priorities?

Program Management E V S M U N/A P1. How effectively was the contractor able to execute overall contract management activities (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

P2. To what degree was the contractor reasonable and cooperative when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

P3. To what degree was the contractor able to timely and effectively resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

P4. How effectively did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

P5. To what degree was the contractor able to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations?

P6. How effectively did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts? (Please elaborate) Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation E V S M U N/A S1. To what degree was the contractor able to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan?

FA7014-20-R-0005

S2. How effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?

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?

1. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated E (Exceptional), M (Marginal) or U (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

2. 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: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Name of Evaluator:

Office or Organization:

FA7014-20-R-0005

Phone Number:

E-Mail:

Evaluator’s Signature: Date:

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Mailing Address: 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 5750, Joint Base Andrews NAF, MD 20762 E-Mail to: usaf.jbanafw.afdw-staff.mbx.afdw-pke@mail.mil, Amanda R McCray, Contracting Officer and Settima M Harton, Contract Specialist

All Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted no later than 5:00PM EST, XX Nov 2019 to be evaluated as part of FA701420R0005 Source Selection for this Offeror.

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

FA7014-20-R-0005

Attachment 04 mailto:amanda.r.mccray.civ@mail.mil

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE