Attachment No. 10 Past Performance Survey.doc
DOC document 71 KB Posted
- Attached to
- INTEGRATED TARGETING AUTOMATION CAPABILITY Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8750-10-R-0001
About this file
Attachment 10 - Past Performance Survey
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment No. 8 List of Registered Parties.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment No. 6 Labor Category Qualifications.doc | DOC document | |
| Draft RFP FA8750-10-R-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment No. 11 List of GFP.pdf | ||
| Attachment No. 7 Technical Read Library.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment No. 5 Draft Order 0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment No. 9 Cross Reference Matrix.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment No. 3 Anticipated CDRL.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment No. 1 Draft DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment No. 12 ID and Assertion.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment No. 2 Draft Statement of Scope.doc | DOC document | |
| Draft RFP Cover Letter.pdf | ||
| Attachment No. 4 Draft Order 0001.pdf |
Show all 13
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
PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY for:
Integrated Targeting Automation Capability (ITAC) Offerors are to complete pages 1 and 2, items 1 through 13.b below and include with proposal submission to:
AFRL/RIKF
Brian D. Shepard, Contract Specialist Air Force Research Laboratory 26 Electronic Parkway Rome NY 13441-4514 Phone: 315-330-1729 Fax: 315-330-1608 Email: brian.shepard@rl.af.mil
| 1 |
| Contractor (Name, Address): |
| 2 |
| Contract Number: |
| 3 |
| Contract Title: |
| 4 |
| Type of Instrument (Fixed Price (FFP); Cost Price |
Firm Fixed (CPFF); Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF); or
Other):
| 5 |
| Description, location, and relevancy of work: |
| 6 |
| Description of work (Prime ___ or Subcontractor ___): |
| 7 |
| Complexity of Work (e.g. difficult, routine): |
| 8 |
| Period of Performance (month/year – month/year): |
| 9 |
| Original Contract Dollar Value: |
| 10 |
| Current/Completed Contract Dollar Value: |
| 11 |
| If amounts for 9 and 10 above are different, provide an explanation for the reason: |
| 12 |
| Type and Extent of Subcontracting: |
| 13 |
| Point of Contact Information: |
| 13a |
| Contracting Officer (Name, Address, Day Time Phone Number): |
| 13b |
| Technical Contact (Name, Position/Title, Address, Day Time Phone Number, E-mail): |
The following Past Performance Survey is be completed by the Offeror’s references and submitted to the Government as identified below.
PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY RESPONSE FORM for:
Integrated Targeting Automation Capability (ITAC) You have been provided as a reference in response to the solicitation for “Integrated Targeting Automation Capability (ITAC)” at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Rome Research Site, Rome NY. In order for the Government to evaluate the past performance of the firm providing you as a reference, please complete this questionnaire and forward to the AFRL/IFKF Contracting Specialist below.
The individual knowledgeable of the contractor’s day-to-day operations and overall performance should complete this questionnaire. However, that individual is encouraged to supplement their own knowledge of the contractor’s performance with the judgment of others within their organization, as applicable.
Response/Due Date: TBD
AFRL/RIKF
Brian D. Shepard, Contract Specialist Air Force Research Laboratory 26 Electronic Parkway Rome NY 13441-4514 Phone: 315-330-1729 Fax: 315-330-1608 Email: brian.shepard@rl.af.mil
PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY RESPONSE FORM (the blocks below will expand as necessary)
| 1 |
| Contractor (Name, Address): |
| 2 |
| Respondent/Government Official’s Information (Name, Position/Title, Address, Day Time Phone Number, E-mail): |
| 3 |
| Relationship and time involved with Contractor: |
| 4 |
| Contract Name/Identifier |
| 5 |
| Type of Instrument (Fixed Price (FFP); Cost Price |
Firm Fixed (CPFF); Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF); or
Other):
| 6 |
| Period of Performance (month/year – month/year): |
| 7 |
| Was Contractor the Prime or Sub-contractor: |
| 8 |
| Original Contract Dollar Value: |
| 9 |
| Current/Completed Contract Dollar Value: |
| 10 |
| If amounts for 8 and 9 above are different, provide an explanation for the reason: |
| 11 |
| Complexity of Work (e.g. difficult, routine): |
| 12 |
| Type and extent of subcontracting to include the use of small businesses, small disadvantaged |
businesses, historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract. (if applicable):
| 13 |
| Description of work: |
The following chart depicts the Ratings that are to be used to evaluate the contractor’s performance:
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Neutral |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
| Based on the offeror’s performance record extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
| Based on the offeror’s performance record substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
| No performance record identifiable |
| Based on the offeror’s performance record some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
| Based on the offeror’s performance record little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
| Based on the offeror’s performance record essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
Please provide explanatory narratives, particularly for any neutral, marginal, or unsatisfactory rating.
Rating
How satisfied were you with this Contractor’s overall performance?
How satisfied were you with this Contractor's ability relative to lifecycle software development including their ability to design, develop, and integrate software to meet new and extremely short, time critical requirements, particularly software development methodology including analogous and metric tools used to automate the software development process?
2a
What were the Contractor's strengths and weaknesses relative to lifecycle software development, integration, and installation into operational systems?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
How satisfied were you with this Contractor’s ability to adequately staff and manage complex work under short, time-critical deadlines, including subcontractor management and control?
How satisfied were you with this Contractor’s ability to forecast and control costs and adhere to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance)?
How satisfied were you with this Contractor’s behavior (i.e. were they reasonable and cooperative) and their commitment to customer satisfaction?
Were the number and severity of any problems excessive, and did the Contractor take appropriate and effective corrective action (not just planned or promised)?
6a
Describe any corrective actions taken, if any, as identified in question 6.
How satisfied were you with this Contractor's ability to transition into a program, including their ability to stand-up with minimal disruption to the program, to include schedule and availability of qualified cleared personnel at the time of award; recruiting/hiring of personnel; dates and procedures for transferring functional responsibilities and integration of any required GFP?
Customer Signature & Date
Additional pages may be attached where space provided is insufficient for a complete and accurate response
Attachment No.10
10 FEB 2010
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .