Attach 08_Past Performance QuestionnaireRev1.pdf

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 1 of 8

The Special Operations Forces/Personnel Recovery (SOF/PR) and Rotary Division at Robins Air Force Base (RAFB), GA requires Depot Level Maintenance (DLM) inspection and repair capabilities for the United States Air Force's (USAF) fleet of TH-1H model aircraft (28 each). Based at Cairns Army Airfield, located off the main post at Fort Novosel (formerly Fort Rucker) in Alabama, this helicopter is the primary rotary wing trainer for the USAF.

The DLM program's primary purpose for the TH-1H fleet 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 (e.g., 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 DLM effort at this time. This process deals with the inspection and repair of primary structural flight components and the removal and installation of critical safety items. Improper maintenance execution yields a credible potential for reduced flight safety, loss of aircraft, and possible loss of life. In accordance with (IAW) Technical Order (TO) 00- 25-4, Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) is required for each TH-1H airframe every 96 months. The required throughput is a maximum of four (4) planned aircraft each twelve-month period of performance (PoP). In addition to planned maintenance activity, unscheduled DLM activities are required on an as-needed basis. These include depot level repairs, such as for crash damaged aircraft, and depot maintenance at fielded locations via the deployment of a Depot Field Team (DFT).

One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offerors' past performance (as the prime, critical subcontractor, or joint venture member) 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____________. 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 Capt Tarha Mazyck at tarha.mazyck.2@us.af.mil and Erica Carter at erica.carter.3@us.af.mil, Attention: FA8552-24-R-0001. Please call the Contracting Officer, Capt Tarha Mazyck at 478-331-1681 if you have any questions. 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.

Signature

1 Atch Past Performance Questionnaire http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:tarha.mazyck.2@us.af.mil mailto:tabatha.mcrae_cooper@us.af.mil

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 2 of 8

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):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 3 of 8

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. 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 8

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/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T3. How adequate/effective was the System Engineering Process?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T4. How well did the contractor implement current quality processes, standard practices for aircraft maintenance and overhaul?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T5. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 5 of 8

Program Management E V S M U N/A

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)?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 6 of 8

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?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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. If the contract included FAR 52.219-9, 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:

(Please state if FAR 52.219-9 was not included in the contract)

S2. If the contract included FAR 52.219-8, how effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

(Please state if FAR 52.219-8 was not included in the contract)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 7 of 8

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?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE / RFP FA8552-24-R-0001 Attachment 08

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 8

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

E-Mail : Contracting Officer - Capt Tarha Mazyck at tarha.mazyck.2@us.af.mil Contract Specialist - Erica Carter at erica.carter.3@us.af.mil http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_602 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/03.htm#P41_5836 mailto:tarha.mazyck.2@us.af.mil mailto:tabatha.mcrae_cooper@us.af.mil