Attach19_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

For Official Use Only

Section L Attachment 19: Past Performance Questionnaire

MEMORANDUM FOR

FROM: AFLCMC/WIUK

235 Byron Street, Ste 19A Robins AFB GA 31098-1670

SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for FA8552-18-R-0004

The AFLCMC/WIUK of the Air Force AFMC is in the process of competitively selecting a source for a TH-1H Depot Level Maintenance program. This contract task is to obtain depot level inspection and repair capabilities for the TH-1H aircraft. The United States Air Force (USAF) TH-1H helicopter is the result of major modifications to a refurbished UH-1H cabin. The modifications include engine, drive train, structural, tailboom, and rotor modifications as part of the Bell UH-1H-II (Huey II) kit, a Bell 212 nose, an avionics upgrade including glass cockpit displays, and crashworthy seat modifications.

This aircraft is the USAF’s primary rotary wing trainer and is based at Cairns Army Airfield, an airfield just off the main post at Ft Rucker, AL. In accordance with (IAW) Technical Order (T.O.) 00-25-4, Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) is required for each TH-1H airframe every 96 months. Additionally, unscheduled depot level repairs, such as for crash damaged aircraft, are required on an as-needed basis. Finally, depot maintenance at the fielded location (deployment of depot field teams (DFT)) is required on an as-needed basis. The primary purpose for the PDM program for the TH-1H aircraft is to accomplish aircraft structural inspections and repairs, concurrent with zonal inspections, at a depth and skill level greater than that available at organizational and intermediate (O&I) maintenance levels. Components (including engines, drivetrain elements, avionics, etc.) are removed to the extent required to conduct a detailed airframe inspection and will not normally be the subject of any depot-level maintenance effort at this time. This process deals with inspection and repairing of primary structural flight components and removal/installation of critical safety items. If conducted improperly, a credible possibility exists for the loss of aircraft and possible loss of life. The projected period of performance for this effort shall be one (1) year with options for four (4) additional years. Required throughput is four planned aircraft per year.

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.

For Official Use Only

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 22 October 2018. 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 William.grun@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.

William J. Grun Contracting Officer

1 Atch Past Performance Questionnaire

When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 9

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):

Section 3: Respondent Identification

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 9

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 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.

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 9

Note: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” but instead include probing and direct questions to draw out the required information desired.

Technical Performance E V S M U N/A

T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How was the quality of technical system operations & maintenance testing and certification efforts?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T3. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T4. How adequate/effective was the System Engineering Process?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T5. How well did the contractor implement current quality processes, standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T6. How well did the contractor implement current standard practices for computer software design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T7. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 6 of 9

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)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P6. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P7. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 7 of 9

Program Management E V S M U N/A

P8. How effective was the contractor’s acquisition management?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P9. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

P10. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 8 of 9

Employee Retention / Attraction E V S M U N/A

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

S1. 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?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

S2. How effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Cost Performance E V S M U N/A

C1. How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

C2. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

C3. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

Section L Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire – Sample 1

For Official Use Only Page 9 of 9

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 delivery schedules).

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:

[Insert here]

FAX to:

E-Mail to: