DRAFT Attachment_6_PPQ.docx
DOCX document 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CBM+/HUMS Engineering Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8552-22-R-0005
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| QAs.docx | DOCX document | |
| QAs.docx | DOCX document | |
| QAs.docx | DOCX document | |
| QAs.docx | DOCX document | |
| QAs.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Attachment_8_Client_Authorization_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT Attachment_5_FACTS_Sheet.doc | DOC document | |
| Draft Attachment_7_Transmittal_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Attachment_4_Consent_Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT RFP.pdf | ||
| DRAFTAttachment_3_Sample_Task_Format.pdf | ||
| DRAFTAttachment_2_Section_M.pdf | ||
| DRAFTAttachment_10_Pre-award_Survey.pdf | ||
| DRAFTAttachment_1_Section_L.pdf |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.
RFP FA8552-22-R-0005
Draft RFP Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire
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. 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):
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 questions below, indicate your rating for the contractor’s performance by checking the appropriate box under each question. Provide supporting information for each response in the space provided. If supporting documentation is not provided for ratings 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.
A. Rate the Offeror’s performance for the following:
1. System / Subsystem Performance
Developing Concepts of Operations (CONOPs) and leading a working group? (Identify any waivers/deviations that were required.)
☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
2. Management / Schedule
| a. | How well did the contractor perform against the delivery schedules of the contract (or IMP/IMS if prior to delivery)? In the remarks, specify if the contractor met, exceeded, or failed to meet contractual delivery dates (or IMP/IMS if prior to delivery) and, if schedule slips occurred, state the number of slips and cumulative schedule variance. | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
b. How well did the contractor manage the associated program budget; tracking and reporting cost, staying on budget, and identifying trends within program progress to possibly identify problems before they impacted the program?
☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
c. How successful was the contractor with timely award and effective management of subcontracts? In supporting information, discuss how well the contractor met participation goals for small/small disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities, minority institutions, and woman-owned business.
☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
3. Systems Engineering
| a. | How well did the contractor develop, and execute test and evaluation efforts? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| b. | How well did the contractor perform at coordinating DoD RMF-driven reviews and approvals for associated ground station systems (hardware and software) and on-board system configurations? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| c. | How well did the contractor perform at configuring secured and approved ground station software for USAF helicopters in accordance with the DoD RMF process? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| d. | How well did the contractor use modeling, simulation and analysis to assist in the System Engineering process? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| e. | How well did the contractor perform at troubleshooting wiring issues associated with the IVHMS sensors and data feeds? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
4. Systems Architecture and Software
| a. | How well did the contractor adhere to its software development approach and managing complex software efforts to meet program schedule? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| b. | How well did the contractor implement open systems architecture design and development? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
c. How effective was the contractor in achieving actual software re-use amount compared to the proposed estimate and controlling software requirements growth?
☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
| d. | How well did the contractor flow-down software requirements and processes to software subcontractor(s)? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
5. Product Support
a. How well did the contractor integrate the logistics support elements to provide effective support planning? (e.g., LRIP and/or fielded assets, CLS, ICS, Type 1 Training, and Life Cycle Cost visibility, provisioning) ☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
b. How well did the contractor provide remote support to SPO and field maintainers using IVHMS and other methods to troubleshoot aircraft issues?
☐ E ☐ V ☐ S ☐ M ☐ U ☐ N/A
| c. | How well did the contractor provide Training and Training Systems to support the program? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| d. | How well did the contractor perform at analyzing fleet component failure analysis and correlation with IVHMS data? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
| e. | How well did the contractor perform at modifying onboard systems software configuration files for the Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS)? | ||||
| ☐ E | ☐ V | ☐ S | ☐ M | ☐ U | ☐ N/A |
Please provide the following information regarding cost/price:
| (1) Original Contract Cost/Price |
| $ |
| (2) Value of Negotiated Contract Changes |
| $ |
| (3) Actual/Projected Cost to Complete |
| $ |
| (4) Baseline Estimate at Completion |
| $ |
| (5) Total Negotiated Changes EAC |
| $ |
| (6) Cost Under run/Over run (-) |
| $ |
REMARKS:
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).
C. GENERAL COMMENT (Choose one of the following and explain your choice in the remarks)
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:
[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:
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Page 10 of 10
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .