Attachment_4_Past_Performance_Questionnaire-25_Sep_2018.pdf

DRAFT

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

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 7

The Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) is in the process of competitively selecting a source for the

United States National Data Center (US NDC) Operations Support & Studies (OSS) II program. The effort is to augment the highly specialized technical capabilities, resources, and assets to ensure mission readiness through the sustainment of uninterrupted 24x7 operations of the US NDC system and maintenance of geophysical data acquisition, data processing, reporting and archiving capability for the United States Atomic Energy Detection

System (USAEDS) operated by AFTAC. US NDC OSS II also supports conducting scientific and engineering studies to improve event detection, association, location, magnitude/yield estimation and classification to meet treaty monitoring needs.

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 30 calendar days after your receipt of this letter. 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 jody.desormeaux.1@us.af.mil and amy.burke.2@us.af.mil or by hand (Attention: Mr. Jody

Desormeaux/Ms. Amy Burke). You may call Mr. Jody Desormeaux at 321-494-0511 or Ms. Amy Burke at 321-

494-8354 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.

Signature

1 Atch

Past Performance Questionnaire http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:jody.desormeaux.1@us.af.mil mailto:amy.burke.2@us.af.mil

When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 7

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

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: Respondent Identification http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836

When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 7

A. Respondent’s name:

B. Respondent’s title:

C. Respondent’s phone number / fax number / e-mail address:

D. Respondent’s position (e.g., Program Manager, PCO/ACO, etc.):

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

F. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the tables 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.

When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 7

Technical Performance E V S M U N/A

T1. How well did the contractor provide support for uninterrupted 24x7 operations including responding to problems and resolving issues?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How well did the contractor provide maintenance of a data acquisition, data processing, reporting and archiving capability of complex hardware and software system?

T3. How well did the contractor apply DoD policies and best commercial practices to the sustainment, maintenance, and development of software systems, i.e. DoD Architecture Framework, modular open system software architecture, and service-oriented architecture?

T4. How effective was the contractor’s system engineering, configuration management, data management, risk management, and system testing processes?

T5. How well did the contractor perform scientific and engineering studies to improve event detection, association, location, magnitude/yield estimation and classification and to support development of new capabilities?

T6. How well did the contractor control classified information and data up to and including Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information?

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 7

Program Management E V S M U N/A

P1. How effective was overall program management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with government and/or other contractor personnel (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

P3. How well did the contractor adhere to required deliveries of technical data, documents, and software submitted in accordance with contractual specifications?

P4. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?

P5. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

P6. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/retaining a qualified workforce with appropriate security clearances to this effort?

P7. 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?

For Official Use Only Page 6 of 7

Cost Performance E V S M U N/A

C1. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?

C3. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?

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).

For Official Use Only Page 7 of 7

SECTION 5: GENERAL COMMENT

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I would/would not award to him today given that I had a choice.

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

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Mailing Address:

[Insert here]

FAX to:

E-Mail to: