Section_L_Attachment_2_-_ICPS_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Section L Attachment 2:

Past Performance Questionnaire – ICPS

For Official Use Only Page 1 of 5

Section 1: Contract Identification

A. Contractor (Company/Division):

B. Contractor Cage Code:

C. Contract Number or Task Order 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):

• Annual Contract Dollar Value: $

• Total Contract Dollar Value: $

• Total Number of Years:

2. Current maximum contract dollar value (assuming all options exercised):

• Annual Contract Dollar Value: $

• Total Contract Dollar Value: $

• Total Number of Years:

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

a. Percentage of work performed on specified contract?

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

For Official Use Only Page 2 of 5

Note: If Offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last three (3) years, please complete separate Past Performance Questionnaire forms for those contracts as well.

Section 2: Customer or Agency Identification

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of work performed 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/fax number/e-mail address:

D. Length of time (number of years/months) respondent worked on subject contract and description of responsibility/position/role:

E. Other suggested points of contact:

Section 4: Performance Information

In the table 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 on whether or not the contractor performed the task. 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.

For Official Use Only Page 3 of 5

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.

Note: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” but instead include probing and direct questions to draw out the required information desired.

The Contractor: E V S M U N/A

A. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in performing analysis of alternatives and generating clear courses of action as solutions to complex networking-related problems.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

B. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in developing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and developing and conducting operator and maintainer capability familiarization venues for cyber defense platforms.

C. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in managing enterprise risk through the implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Risk Management Framework process to assess and authorize systems for use on DoD networks.

D. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in implementing Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) technology in

For Official Use Only Page 4 of 5

The Contractor: E V S M U N/A support of three “use” cases: advanced threat detection; basic security monitoring; and investigation and incident response.

E. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in creating/enhancing hardware, software, and user interfaces for the AF’s Information Operations Platform (IOP) or other similar cyber defense systems.

F. Expertise, as verified through past experience, in developing, integrating, and modernizing advanced IDS/IPS systems and capabilities (including hardware and software) utilizing agile methodologies (e.g. Scrum, Kanban, JIRA/Confluence software, etc.).

Areas Rated:

(1) Quality of Service Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(2) Schedule Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(3) Cost Control: N/A Supporting Narrative:

(4) Business Relations Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

(5) Management of Key Personnel Rating:

Supporting Narrative:

Additional remarks:

For Official Use Only Page 5 of 5

[click and pick the date]

Respondent’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to: