Form_5.pdf

PDF 19 KB Posted

Attached to
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES)
Solicitation number
FA7046-11-R-0003
Issued by

About this file

Form 5

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
FA7046-11-R-0003-0004.doc DOC document
OTES TO 0003 Amendment 3 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
OTES TO 0003 Amendment 3 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
TO_02_Det_5_Bomber_Test_Division Amendment 3 - 14 Oct 11.docx DOCX document
Section L Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.docx DOCX document
OTES_RFP_Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
PWS TO_01_Nuclear_Space Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.docx DOCX document
OTES Final RFP-PPI QuestionsResponses 14 Oct 11.xls XLS spreadsheet
Amendment 1 PWS Oct 7.docx DOCX document
Amendment 1Section L 10-7.docx DOCX document
Amendment 1 RFP.doc DOC document
Amendment 1 OTES_CDRLs10-7.docx DOCX document
ppi_tool.accdb —
AFTECMAN99-101.pdf PDF
Amendment 1OTES_QASP 10-7.docx DOCX document
Form_3.pdf PDF
Form_4.pdf PDF
Form_6.pdf PDF
Form_2.pdf PDF
Form_1.pdf PDF
Final_Sample_TO_03 JSPDS.docx DOCX document
FINAL OTES_QASP.docx DOCX document
Final_OTES_RFP_30Sep11.doc DOC document
Form_4.xfdl XFDL file
Form_3.xfdl XFDL file
Form_5.xfdl XFDL file
Final_ TO_02_Det_5_Bomber_Test_Division.docx DOCX document
Form_2.xfdl XFDL file
DRAFT OTES Responses.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Form_6.xfdl XFDL file
form_1.xfdl XFDL file
Final_TO_01_Nuclear_Space.docx DOCX document
Source_Interested Parties List.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
OTES PWS 25_ Jul_ 11_AFL_A —
Det 5 Bomber Test Division TO_7_15_11_AFL.docx DOCX document
CJCS_Instruction_3170.01G_Joint_Capabilities_Intergration_ _Development_System.pdf PDF
DoD_Instruction_8500.2 _Information_Assurance_Implementation.pdf PDF
AFOTEC_OT_of_IA_Guide _2nd_Edition.pdf PDF
OTES PWS 25_ Jul_ 11_AFL_A.docx DOCX document
AFOTECPAM_99-104 _AFOTEC_Operational_Suitability_Test_ _Evaluation_Guide.pdf PDF
TO Nuclear Space 15_JUL_11_AFL.docx DOCX document
AFOTEC_99-101 _Conduct_of_Operational_Test_ _Evaluation.pdf PDF
AFI_33-332 _Privacy_Act_Program.pdf PDF
Front_Ver_54_June_15_2010_34x22.pdf PDF
Air Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist —
DRAFT OTES RFP.doc DOC document
OTES QASP 2 Aug 11.docx DOCX document
AFI_99-103 _Capabilities-based_Test_ _Evaluation.pdf PDF
DoD_Directive_5000.1 _The_Defense_Acquisition_System.pdf PDF
Defense_Acquisition_Guidebook_(DAG).pdf PDF
Show 40 more

Latest 50 of 65 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.

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

1. CONTRACT NUMBER

QUARTERLY ASSESSMENT REPORTMONTHLY or

Attach continuation sheet(s) if necessary

2. MONTH

3. OVERALL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE TO: AFOTEC/A-7K

Contractor:

5. Monthly Performance Assessment: (Utilize the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) definitions and notes provided below.)

6. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY: (Describe any performance issues noted during the month/quarter, any corrective actions taken. Reference PWS para for each issue.)

EXCEPTIONAL

VERY GOOD

SATISFACTORY

MARGINAL

UNSATISFACTORY

Exceptional. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT.

However, a singular benefit could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, you should identify a significant event in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory. Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contracotr recovered from without impact to the contract. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DoD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Safisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Unsatisfactory. Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, you should identify multiple events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. However, a singular prob lem could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g. Management, Quality, Safety, or Environmental Deficiency Reports, or letters).

RELEASABILITY: Access to this form is restricted: this form is For Official Use Only (FOUO) when filled in; requests for accessibility must be approved by the OPR.

AFOTEC Form 5

4. FROM: (NAME OF COR)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some serious problems, but recovery was still possible. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were marginally effetive or were not fully implemented.

Marginal.

NOTE: To justify marginal performance, you should identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing the managment tool used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g. Managment, Quality, Safety, or Environmental Deficiency Report or letter).

AFOTEC Form 5, 20080301 (reverse) (Test Form)

7. POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS: (List areas of concern including the surveillance process now used, items should be discussed at next progress meeting.)

8. CHANGES: (Upcoming personnel changes, contractor or SOW changes, contract modification.)

RELEASABILITY: Access to this form is restricted: this form is For Official Use Only (FOUO) when filled in; requests for accessibility must be approved by the OPR.

Functional Commander/Director (FC/FD)

PRINT NAME & INDICATE TITLE

Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)

SIGNATURE DATE

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