Attachment_10_-_Attachment_L-5_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is in support of the USAFE F-16 Depot acquisition. Tasks include F-16 aircraft scheduled paint and corrosion control maintenance, drop-in maintenance, depot-level modifications, and Contract Field Team (CFT) support. 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: eric.dumpert.1@us.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

CONTRACT

IDENTIFICATION

INFORMATION

ENTRIES

Contractor

CAGE Code of contractor contract d d

Contract number

Contract type

Was this a competitively awarded contract?

Period of performance

Initial contract value

Current/final contract value

Reasons for differences between initial contract value and final contract value

Description of service provided mailto:eric.dumpert.1@us.af.mil

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

CUSTOMER OR

AGENCY

IDENTIFICATION

INFORMATION

ENTRIES

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

IDENTIFICATION

INFORMATION

ENTRIES

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

Please answer all “yes/no” questions for Tables 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A (e.g., Certified Facility/Personnel,Quality Management, Schedule Efficiency and Risk Management). Please provide additional information/comments that may be useful.

In the remaining 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.

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

TABLE 1A CERTIFIED

FACILITIES & PERSONNEL FOR

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

CAPABILITY - RELEVANCY

YES/NO OTHER INFORMATION

/EXPLANATION

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 awardee?

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.

TABLE 1B - CERTIFIED FACILITIES & PERSONNEL FOR

DEPOT MAINTENANCE CAPABILITY - PERFORMANCE

E V S M U N/A

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

TABLE 1B - CERTIFIED FACILITIES & PERSONNEL FOR

DEPOT MAINTENANCE CAPABILITY - PERFORMANCE

E V S M U N/A

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

Effectiveness of inspection processes 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 to.

TABLE 2A QUALITY MANAGEMENT -

RELEVANCY

YES/NO

OTHER INFORMATION AS DEEMED

PERTINENT

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

Did the program include quality performance in the areas of depot-level maintenance?

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 quality improvement in repeatable maintenance

Did the program include quality performance in the area of technical document control and update management?

Did the program include a corrective action process and a system or process for tracking, resolving, and improving upon any identified non-conformances?

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

TABLE 2B QUALITY MANAGEMENT - PERFORMANCE

E V S M U N/A

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

Adequacy/effectiveness of configuration management and document compliance procedures

Effectiveness of security controls for facility, Government furnished property, and data

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

TABLE 3A SCHEDULE EFFICIENCY,

& RISK MANAGEMENT –

RELEVANCY

YES/NO OTHER INFORMATION AS DEEMED

PERTINENT

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 the Contractor provide a risk management plan, to include risk mitigation strategies, for any identified risks?

Was the Contractor proactive at identifying and mitigating risk throughout the duration of the program?

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

TABLE 3B SCHEDULE EFFICIENCY, & RISK

MANAGEMENT – PERFORMANCE

E V S M U N/A

Efficiency in achieving schedule reductions through actions such as streamlined logistics, work sequencing, and work planning

Effectiveness of response to sudden increases in capacity need

Overall delivery or on-time performance

Effectiveness of risk management and mitigation

The questions shown below should be answered yes/no to indicate to us if country-specific concerns or other issues were involved in the effort the performance assessments have been applied to.

TABLE 4A COUNTRY-SPECIFIC

CONCERNS - RELEVANCY YES/NO OTHER INFORMATION AS DEEMED

PERTINENT

Did effort involve application of customs, application for Visas, or use of a 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?

Were there any union strikes, labor disputes, or any other manpower related shortfalls that disrupted on- time completion of the program’s work?

Were there any issues with shipping, receiving, and/or transporting material to and from the Contractor’s location of operations?

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

SECTION 5: OVERALL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please e-mail this completed questionnaire to:

eric.dumpert.1@us.af.mil (PCO).

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) mailto:eric.dumpert.1@us.af.mil