RFP_Atch_9_C130_UDLM_PDM_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_dtd_5Nov19.pdf

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

RFP FA8504-20-R-0001 Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 5

The C-130 Hercules Division, AFLCMC/WLN of the Air Force is in the process of competitively selecting a source for C-130 Contract Depot Maintenance (Unscheduled Depot Maintenance (UDLM) and Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM)). This effort will provide annual C-130 Hercules Heavy Maintenance Support (HMS).

The HMS support shall encompass C-130 Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM), C-130J D-Check, and/or C- 130H PDMs on “excess defense articles” currently in 1500-type storage at Aerospace Maintenance and generation Group (AMARG). Additionally, there is a requirement for yearly Mid-Cycle Paint support of C-130J aircraft variants and support of Unscheduled Depot Level Maintenance (UDLM) on all United States Air Force (USAF) C-130 variants to include Continental United States (CONUS) LC-130H UDLMs. The specific aircraft work/paint specifications (WS) and work control documents/work cards.

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 work efforts.

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 30 calendar days after your receipt of this letter. 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 victor.conner.1@us.af.mil. 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.

Beckie G. King Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLNKA

Attch: Past Performance Questionnaire

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 5

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. 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):

H. 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):

I. Description of work performed:

J. Was this a competitively awarded contract? ☐ Yes ☐ No

K. 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):

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 5

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. If supporting documentation is not provided for ratings that are other than “satisfactory,” the ratings will be considered to be unsubstantiated and will be interpreted as satisfactory. Attach additional pages if more space is needed. The performance rating scale is defined as follows:

Code Performance Rating

E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance exceeded many contractual schedule, and subcontractor management requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD – Performance exceeded some contractual schedule, and subcontractor management requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective

S SATISFACTORY – Performance met contractual schedule, and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance did not meet some contractual schedule, and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance did not meet most contractual schedule, and subcontractor management requirements and recovery did not happen in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained a 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.

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 5

Timeliness of contract deliverables E V S M U N/A

P1. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems, to maintain the schedule of contract deliverables, without extensive customer guidance?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P2. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve timeliness of contract deliveries?

P3. How well did the contractor meet contractual delivery schedule requirements?

Subcontractor management E V S M U N/A

S1. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

S2. How well did the contractor manage, control and ensure on-time delivery of their subcontractor(s)?

S3. How well did the contractor ensure the subcontractor complied with technical requirements and completed task with minimal discrepancies?

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 5

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:

Mailing Address:

AFLCMC/WLNKA

ATTN: Beckie King and Victor Conner 235 Byron Street, Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA 31098‐1670

E-Mail to: beckie.king@us.af.mil and victor.conner.1@us.af.mil