Section_L_-_Attachment_05_-_Phase_1B_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8240-15-R-7218
About this file
Section L - Attachment 05
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
J-Tech II
FA8240-15-R-7218
L–5 Attachment
J-TECH II
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
This is a past performance questionnaire for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to obtain past performance information on the contractor listed below. You should have received this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter from the contractor listed below asking for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Information obtained in this questionnaire is for the sole purpose of evaluating the contractor’s past performance history to assist the USAF in determining the best value for award of a contract resulting from this solicitation. As a reviewer, your participation in this questionnaire is greatly appreciated.
INSTRUCTIONS:
To complete this questionnaire, the contractor should:
1. Complete the CONTRACT DATA on the next page of this questionnaire.
2. Forward this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter to the reviewer. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure all PPQs are completed and sent back to the USAF.
To complete this questionnaire, the reviewer should:
1. Review the CONTRACT DATA on the next page of this questionnaire.
2. Complete the RATINGS section on the next page of this questionnaire by evaluating and assigning a rating as defined below for Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, and Utilization of Small Business. Include a narrative for each rating if appropriate.
OR
Submit the completed and approved contractor performance evaluation report in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
3. Review and complete the ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION table of this questionnaire.
4. Return the questionnaire to the U.S. Air Force by email to kevin.hugie@us.af.mil by close of business, Monday, 31 Aug 2015. Do not return this questionnaire to the originator.
QUESTIONS:
If you have any questions about completing or submitting this questionnaire, please contact the Contracting Officer for this acquisition, Kevin Hugie at kevin.hugie@us.af.mil
RATINGS*:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
Exceptional-5
| 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. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good-4 |
| 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. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory-3 |
| 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. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. 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 Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| Marginal-2 |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, 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 management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| Unsatisfactory-1 |
| 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. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, 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). |
| N/A (Neutral) |
| N/A (not applicable) should be used if the rating category does not apply |
| Please explain all ratings of N/A |
*The ratings definitions and notes above come directly from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at http://www.cpars.gov/cparsfiles/pdfs/CPARSQualityChecklist.pdf
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE
CONTRACT DATA:
Name of Contractor::
Duns Number:
Contract Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Value:
Contract Type:
Contract Award Date:
Agency/Org. Name:
Contracting Office:
Contract Reporting Period (Start):
Contract Reporting Period (End):
Task Order Title:
Task Order Number:
Task Order Value:
Task Order Type:
Task Order Award Date:
Task Order Reporting Period (Start):
Task Order Reporting Period (End):
Please circle the twelve (12) continuous month period of performance (PoP) being rated For example): the first twelve (12) continuous months PoP, the second twelve (12) continuous months PoP, the third twelve (12) continuous months PoP, the fourth twelve
(12) continuous months PoP and the fifth twelve (12) continuous months PoP.
First Period, Second Period, Third Period, Fourth Period, Fifth Period
The remainder of this form is to be completed by the reference and returned to the USAF as instructed in the Client Authorization Letter.
RATINGS:
Please check the appropriate Rating for each Performance Element. If a fiscal year’s performance (contract year, contract period, contract term, etc.) rating differs from the overall ratings provide below, please note the difference(s) below.
| Exceptional-5 |
| Very Good-4 |
| Satisfactory-3 |
| Marginal-2 |
| Unsatisfactory-1 |
| N/A (Neutral) |
Quality of Product or Service
Contractors Schedule/ Timeliness
Cost Control
Business Relations/ Management
Management of Key Personnel
Utilization of Small Business
Provide remarks on exceptional performance:
(Provide data supporting this observation. You may continue on additional sheets if necessary.)
Provide remarks on unsatisfactory performance:
(Provide data supporting this observation. You may continue on additional sheets if necessary.)
Identify corporate affiliations with the contractor:
Would you conduct business with this contractor again?
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION:
Information provided by:
Agency/ Firm:
Name:
Title:
E-mail:
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Fax:
J-Tech II Page 1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .