Section_J_Atch_29 _Section_L_Atch_2 _Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 195 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Shared Early Warning System (SEWS) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8723-16-R-0005
About this file
Section J - Attachment 29
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Shared Early Warning System (SEWS) II has more files on GovTribe.
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
For Official Use Only When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.
SECTION J ATTACHMENT 29, SECTION L ATTACHMENT 2, PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SHARED EARLY WARNING SYSTEM (SEWS) PRIME CONTRACT RE-COMPETE
(SEWS II)
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SOLICITATION NO.: FA8723-16-R-0005
ATTACHMENT 29
SECTION L ATTACHMENT 02
23 SEPTEMBER 2016
Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Battle Management Directorate Strategic Warning and Surveillance Systems Division
(AFLCMC/HBQS)
The SEW System Program Office of the AFLCMC/HBQ is in the process of competitively selecting a source for the SEWS program.
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 aflcmc.hbqk.sewsrecompete@us.af.mil and larry.talley@us.af.mil or by hand and faxed to 719-554-3411 (Attention: Mr. Larry Talley). Please call Mr. Larry Talley at 719-554-9414 prior to fax transmission or 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.
MARK R. PRATT, Capt, USAF Past Performance Evaluation Team Chair Strategic Warning and Surveillance Systems Division
1 Atch :
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. Contract Dollar Value:
1. Original maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $_______
2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised): $_______
3. Provide 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 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. |
| Technical Evaluation (Subfactors 1-3) | |
| E | |
| V | |
| S | |
| M | |
| U | |
| N/A |
How well did the Contractor perform as a prime Government contractor? May include any team/sub-contractor management experience in this description.
How effective was the contractor’s Transition Plan in terms of minimizing interruption to operations?
How well did the Contractor perform the tasks/functions in terms of the unique and highly technical nature of operations, maintenance, and support and sustainment, geographic locations supported, service similarity, and aging infrastructure?
How well did the Contractor accommodate significant workload increases and decreases?
How well did the contractor manage Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or other international-related (e.g., International Program Office support) activities to include managing under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) and/or managing Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs)?
How well did the contractor plan, integrate, execute, manage, monitor, field, and control Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and/or Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) components?
How well did the Contractor manage Cybersecurity requirements?
How well did the Contractor maintain a distributed Information Technology system while meeting Operation Availability system thresholds?
How well did the Contractor manage and/or meet requirements on projects or contracts relating to Tactical Display Processors (TDPs)?
How well did the contractor demonstrate Integrated Logistics Support?
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 they promised in their proposal, I (Check one box below) award to them today given that I had a choice.
| ☐ Definitely would | ☐ Probably would | ☐ Might or might not |
| ☐ Probably would not | ☐ Definitely would not |
REMARKS: _________________________________________________________________
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.
Respondent’s Signature Date
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
Mailing:
Mr. Larry Talley
AFLCMC/HBQK
130 W. Paine St Peterson AFB CO 80914 E-Mail to: larry.talley@us.af.mil and aflcmc.hbqk.sewsrecompete@us.af.mil Section J Attachment 29, Section L Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire: FA8723-16-R-0005 For Official Use Only image1.gif
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .