FINAL_RFP_Attachment_4_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_5Jun19.pdf

RFP ATTACHMENT: 4

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

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 8

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire The AFLCMC/WLDK office of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center is in the process of competitively selecting a source for the T-38 Structural Component Re-/Reverse Engineer program. The T-38 Program Office (PO) is focused on the re-/reverse engineering of 11 structural components.

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 workefforts.

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 26 August 2019. 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 casey.hodson@us.af.mil and gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil. Please contact Casey Hodson at 801-777- 8416, or Greg Hales at 801-775-6527, 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 (Procuring Contracting Officer)

1 Attachment 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:casey.hodson@us.af.mil mailto:gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil

For Official Use Only

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 8

Section L Attachment: Past PerformanceQuestionnaire

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):

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

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 8

For Official Use Only

Section 3: Respondent Identification 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 highlyeffective.

V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirementsto 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 andrecovery 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 wereineffective.

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

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 8

For Official Use Only

Technical Performance E V S M U N/A T1. How would you rate this contractor’s ability to disassemble, measure, and document (i.e. reverse engineer) the original configuration of components?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How would you rate this contractor’s ability to test original components and verify original configuration properties i.e. material, strength, stiffness, bonding, etc?

T3. How would you rate contractor’s ability to test and verify manufactured assemblies meet/exceed original configurations?

T4. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to develop complete Technical Data Packages (TDP) for reverse and/or re-engineered items?

T5. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to meet the designated contract timeline?

T6. How would you rate the contractor’s experience with reverse and/or re-engineering bonded honeycomb assemblies?

T7. How well did the contractor demonstrate a knowledge of the process necessary to accomplish a complete reverse and/or re-engineering and TDP development project for large assemblies?

T8. How well did the contractor manage technical communications with the government and make timeline/priority adjustments as necessary?

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 8

For Official Use Only

Program Management E V S M U N/A

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

P2. How would you rate the contractor’s responsiveness including timely recognition and notification of administrative or engineering problems affecting the program?

P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor monitor the program schedules and critical milestones?

P4. How well did the contractor control and manage subcontractors?

P5. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?

P6. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives (component cost reduction, in particular) and technical requirements?

P7. How would you rate contractor’s ability to maintain an experienced personnel base to support contract requirements throughout the performance period?

For Official Use Only Page 6 of 8

For Official Use Only

Program Management E V S M U N/A

P8. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?

P9. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?

P10. How well did the contractor manage and maintain the integrity of proprietary data/information?

Transition / Phase-in E V S M U N/A

TP1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel?

TP2. How effective was the contractor in maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts?

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?

E3. How effective was employee compensation towards quality of work?

For Official Use Only Page 7 of 8

For Official Use Only

Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation E V S M U N/A

S1. If the contract included FAR 52.219-9, 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?

(Please state if FAR 52.219-9 was not included in the contract)

S2. If the contract included FAR 52.219-8, how effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?

(Please state if FAR 52.219-8 was not included in the contract)

Cost Performance E V S M U N/A

C1. How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs?

C2. 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?

C4. How sufficient and timely was the contractor’s cost reporting?

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 deliveryschedules)

For Official Use Only Page 8 of 8

For Official Use Only

Section 5: GENERAL COMMENT

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I [ click and select an item ] award to him today given that I had a choice.

REMARKS:

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

[click and pick the date]

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

AFLCMC/WLDKA

ATTN: Casey Hodson and Greg Hales 6072 Fir Ave. Building 1233 Hill AFB, UT 84056 or

E-Mail the completed form to:

casey.hodson@us.af.mil gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil 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:casey.hodson@us.af.mil mailto:casey.hodson@us.af.mil mailto:gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil