CyOFTS_II_Section_L,_Attachment_7_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_rev_1.docx

For Official Use Only When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment 7 Past Performance Questionnaire – CyOFTS II The 38th Contracting Squadron (38 CONS) of the Air Force Space Command is in the process of competitively selecting a source for the CyOFTS II program which will provide qualified manpower equivalents to augment and support Cyber Information Operations Training for the Field Training Unit.

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 (10) calendar days after your receipt of this letter no later than November 3, 2017.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 shela.colon.1@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.

Shela M. Colon Contracting Officer

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. 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 Areas (Relevancy)

Please indicate if the contractor provided or performed the following services or tasks by placing an “X” in the appropriate block to the right of each question of the Performance Areas below. Please provide a detailed narrative to support each rating.

1. Demonstrated history of developing cognitive lesson material supporting a Cyber Weapons System IQT/MQT or Cyber Mission Force Teams(s) from a Mission Training Task List IAW Instructional Systems Development methodologies.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

2 Demonstrated history of developing psycho-motor lesson material supporting a Cyber Weapons System IQT/MQT or Cyber Mission Force Teams(s) from a Mission Training Task List IAW Instructional Systems Development methodologies.

3. Demonstrated history of instruction presenting cognitive lessons to students supporting a Cyber Weapon System IQT/MQT or Cyber Mission Force Teams(s).

4. Demonstrated history of instruction presenting psycho-motor lessons to students supporting a Cyber Weapon System IQT/MQT or Cyber Mission Force Teams(s).

5. Demonstrated experience with development, implementation, monitoring and management of cyber simulation technology, simulator reconstitution, remote administration, local instructor/trainer, exercise controller usage, and interface to external data collection capabilities.

6. Demonstrated experience with operations and implementations of Air Force Cyber Weapons Systems architecture.

7. Demonstrated history of recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified workforce with appropriate certification/education requirements, to include obtaining and maintaining personnel clearances

Section 5: Performance Information (Quality)

How well did the contractor perform? Using the following rating system, please assign a performance rating for each of the factors in the table below by indicating the performance rating for each area to the right of each. Please provide a detailed narrative to support the ratings above 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.

Areas Rated (1)Quality of Service Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(2) Schedule Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(3) Cost Control: N/A

(4) Business Relations Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(5) Management of Key Personnel Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

Remarks:

4. Question: Were there any adverse performance issues/problems? If so, how were they resolved?

Cure Notice

Show Cause Notice

Suspension of Payment

Termination for Convenience/Default

Denial of Claim

Other

Remarks:

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 them 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:

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 6