AtchL3_Questionnaire.doc

FA8232-12-R-1001, F-16 PACAF Depot Maintenance

Section L Attachment L3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is in support of the F-16 PACAF Depot Maintenance Services Program acquisition. Tasks include F-16 aircraft scheduled paint and corrosion control maintenance, drop in maintenance, application of Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs), low-cost modifications, such as the 341 Bulkhead repair or replace, and Contract Field Team (CFT) support, and surge capability. Customers with direct experience with the offeror as a prime or subcontractor on recent and relevant programs with similarity to any of these tasks are requested to complete this questionnaire.

Your responses are critical in evaluating the performance of this company and weigh heavily on the award decision of a multi-million dollar contract. Handwritten responses are sufficient. If you need more space than provided, please attach additional pages or write on the back but please provide clear references to the original question/section. Responses will be treated as source selection information.

Offeror: Complete Section 1, then e-mail questionnaire to the customer points of contact listed on the Past Performance Information Sheet.

Offeror’s Evaluator: Complete Sections 2-5 and e-mail to: lance.hardman@hill.af.mil (PCO).

DO NOT PROVIDE A COPY BACK TO THE OFFEROR.

When filled in, this document is treated as source selection information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor

CAGE Code of contractor contract was awarded to

Contract number

Contract type

Was this a competitive contract?

Period of performance

Initial contract cost

Current/final contract cost

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

Description of service provided

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

Customer or agency name

Customer or agency description (if applicable):

Geographic description of services under this contract

Local

Nationwide

Worldwide

Other Command

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

Evaluator's name

Evaluator's title

Evaluator's phone/fax number

Evaluator’s email address

Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

General Instructions

1. For each section (e.g., Certified Facility/Personnel, Quality Management, Schedule Efficiency and Quality), IN THE QUESTIONS TABLES, please answer all “yes/no” questions for each section. Please provide additional information/comments that may be useful.

2. Each section includes a PERFORMANCE EVALUTION TABLE where you are asked to indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question, according to the rating scale below, which is defined as follows:

The questions shown below should be answered (yes/no) to indicate to us what type of effort the performance assessments have been applied too.

Did program include management of aircraft (F-16 or other, if other, specify system) Depot Workload similar to any or all tasks mentioned in the heading for this questionnaire?

Did this program include the deployment of Contractor Field Teams to offsite locations to assist with aircraft repairs?

Did this program include Drop-in maintenance?

Did the program also include access to a central Data Library and/or use/control of TCTOs or other Government data?

Did this program include a requirement for “ramp-up”, transition, or phase-in activities, i.e., was the contractor coming in as a new incumbent?

What level of Inspection was required? Were Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) inspections required?

Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes___ Default___ Convenience___ Pending Terminations___ No ___

If contract was terminated, please explain reason, e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules and why?

The items below should be marked with a rating to indicate to us how effective the technical performance was.

Effectiveness of overall depot maintenance management

Effectiveness of deployed Contractor Field Teams to offsite locations to assist with aircraft repairs.

Effectiveness of Drop-in maintenance

Effectiveness of access to Data Library and/or use/control of TCTOs or other Government data

Effectiveness of ramp-up for full assumption of responsibilities as new incumbent. Successfully responded to emergency and/or drop-in situations

Effectiveness of Inspection Systems, or NDI

The questions shown below should be answered (yes/no) to indicate to us what type of quality management the performance assessments have been applied too.

Did the program include quality performance in the areas of aircraft paint and strip tasks?

Did the program include quality performance in the areas of minor aircraft structural modifications?

Did the program include quality performance in the areas of maintaining overall security of the facility?

Were any deliveries considered insufficient or fail inspection and have to be returned for rework?

Did the program include maintaining overall security of the facility? Describe at what level in remarks.

Did the program include quality improvement in repeatable maintenance tasks?

Quality of certification and qualification efforts?

The items below should be marked with a rating to indicate to us how effective the Quality Management performance was.

Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements

Adequacy/effectiveness of environmental safety procedures

Effectiveness of security controls for facility, government furnished property, data

The questions shown below should be answered (yes/no) to indicate what type of schedule, efficiency and risk management effort the performance assessments have been applied too.

Did the program require the contractor to establish and manage an aircraft flow and time accounting system?

Did the program require maintenance of an Integrated Master schedule (IMS)?

Were there any late deliveries on your contract?

Did the program require surge capability or response to sudden increases in capacity?

Did this program include Cost Plus or Cost Reimbursed pricing arrangements in addition to FFP?

Did the contractor provide a risk management plan and mitigate any identified risks?

The items below should be marked with a rating to indicate to us how effective schedule & risk management performance was.

Rate efficiency in schedule or cost savings through actions such as streamlined logistics and planning for aircraft or work flow

Rate overall delivery or on-time performance

Effectiveness of response to sudden increases in capacity need

Effectiveness of cost controls

Effectiveness of risk management and mitigation

The questions shown below should be answered (yes/no) to indicate to us what type of program management effort the performance assessments have been applied too.

Were teaming relationships with subcontractors present?

Were written policy and procedures available?

Was a written strike contingency plan available?

Were periodic program reviews required?

Was program administrative reporting required?

The items below should be marked with a rating to indicate to us how effective program management performance was.

Effectiveness of overall management (ability to effectively lead, manage & control program)

Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution w/o extensive customer guidance

Successfully responded to emergency and/or drop-in situations

Effective Management of sub-contracted efforts

Effectiveness of material management (include security of GFP/Property)

Effectiveness of acquisition/purchasing management

Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

Implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality, support timeliness.

Ability to effectively manage resources and personnel and level of support was adequate

Effectiveness of strike contingency planning

Effectiveness of contractor-provided work-around solutions for any work stoppage

Effectiveness of program status and management reporting

The questions shown below should be answered (yes/no) to indicate to us if foreign performance or other issues were involved in effort the performance assessments have been applied too.

Did effort involve application of customs process, taxes, application for Visas, or use of port of entry?

Did the effort involve any public-private partnerships?

Did any issues of performance arise over a host nation military repair operation being co-located at the place of performance?

Were cost, performance or schedule affected at any time by financial instability on the part of the contractor?

No need for rating in this section. Thank you for your input.

SECTION 5: OVERALL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

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

Yes ____ No ____ (If yes, provide details/comments)

Evaluator’s Signature

Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please e-mail this completed questionnaire to: lance.hardman@hill.af.mil (PCO).

Questions or Comments can be directed to Lance Hardman at (801) 777-6878 or lance.hardman@hill.af.mil