FA8818-13-R-0021_LSMA_SecL_C_FINAL.pdf

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 Page 1 of 2

Section L

APPENDIX C

Past Performance Documents

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 Page 2 of 2

CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER

Past performance information concerning private sector contractors, subcontractors and joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to the Government without their consent. Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer. This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

The Government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the offeror’s past performance. In an effort to assist the Government's Past Performance evaluation team in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following client authorization letter be completed by any commercial customers identified in your proposal. The completed client authorization letters should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

Offerors should send with their list of references a letter similar to the following authorizing the reference to provide past performance information to the Government.

SAMPLE

Dear “Client:”

We are responding to a Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Request for Proposal FA8818-13-R-TBD for Launch Services Mission Assurance (LSMA).

In their acquisitions, the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. They are requiring those clients of entities responding to their solicitation to be identified, and their participation in the evaluation process is requested. In the event that you are contacted for information on work performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms.____________________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on his/her knowledge of our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to .

Sincerely, LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 Page 1 of 2

FA8818-13-R-0021

L102 Appendix C

Subcontractor Consent Letter

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 Page 2 of 2

SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT LETTER

FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime contractor during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government’s Past Performance evaluation team in assessing your recent past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent letter be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent letters should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

SAMPLE

Dear “Contracting Officer:”

We are participating as a (insert “subcontractor” or “teaming partner”) with (insert name of prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Request for Proposal FA8818-13-R-TBD for the Launch Services Mission Assurance (LSMA).

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent letter to allow you to discuss our past performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

INTEGRITY, SERVICE, EXCELLENCE

Date

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center is in the process of competitively selecting a source for Launch Services Mission Assurance (LSMA).

One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the Offeror’s 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. To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically and e-mailed to steven.wells@kirtland.af.mil. We would greatly appreciate your response in the next five working days. Please call the undersigned at (505) 846-5426 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.

Steven A. Wells Contracting Officer & Branch Chief, SMC/PKTN 3548 Aberdeen Ave, SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5778 Comm: 505-846-5426

1 Atch:

LSMA Past Performance Questionnaire

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER (AFSPC)

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 1 of 10

Past Performance

Questionnaire

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 2 of 10

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 2.101 & 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ________________________________________________________________________

B. Contractor Cage Code: _________________________________

C. Contract number: ______________________________________

D. Contract type: ______________________________

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________

G. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

H. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

J. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name: __________________________________________________________

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable): __________________________________________

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 3 of 10

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name: __________________________________________________________________

B. Evaluator's title: ___________________________________________________________________

C. Evaluator's phone/fax number: ________________________________________________________

Length of time (number of years/months) evaluator worked on subject contract: ____________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Each area of evaluation below is composed of two parts – the first part asks a series of multiple choice questions pertaining to the scope of the effort, to assist the team with evaluating relevance of the effort to the current procurement, and the second part requests your assessment of the contractor’s performance in specific areas of evaluation for the current procurement. For the assessments, please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

B BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

P PURPLE/VERY GOOD - During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

G GREEN/SATISFACTORY - During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level. Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Y YELLOW/MARGINAL – During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance.

There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

R RED/UNSATISFACTORY – During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 4 of 10 number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

Technical Approach Relevance

The following definitions are provided to assist the evaluator with answering the relevance questions.

Sustainment engineering – engineering services which support the continued employment of fielded systems, including refurbishment of non-serviceable items and test and analysis to determine aging effects and serviceability.

Launch system procurement – Procurement of new launch systems, including substantial design and development activity, to meet ballistic or space launch mission requirements.

Launch service procurement – Procurement of launch services using existing designs to place payloads in desired trajectories/orbits.

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) – Design and performance analysis using independently-developed models and simulations to validate and verify launch service contractor system performance.

TAR1: In which of the following areas did the contractor provide sustainment engineering support?

(You may select multiple entries as appropriate).

____ Excess ballistic missile motor refurbishment

____ Excess ballistic missile motor aging surveillance

____ Solid rocket motor refurbishment (please indicate type____________________)

____ Solid rocket motor aging surveillance (please indicate type____________________)

____ Solid rocket motor testing (please indicate type____________________)

____ Solid rocket motor analysis (please indicate type____________________)

TAR2: In which of the following areas did the contractor provide mission assurance support? (You may select multiple entries as appropriate).

____ Space launch system (new design) IV&V

____ Space launch service (existing design) IV&V

____ Ballistic/Suborbital launch system (new design) IV&V

____ Ballistic/Suborbital service (existing design) IV&V

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 5 of 10

____ IV&V of launch subsystems (indicate types_______________________________ ________________________________________________________, e.g. motor/engine)

____ IV&V of launch support services (indicate types_______________________________ ________________________________________________________, e.g. mission design)

____ Analysis of launch systems/subsystems (indicate type of analysis/analyses ____________________________________________________, e.g. propulsion system)

____ Analysis of launch support services (indicate type of analysis/analyses ____________________________________________, e.g. dispersion/insertion analysis)

TAR3: In which of the following areas did the contractor provide special studies? (You may select multiple entries as appropriate).

____ Weapon system basing

____ Launch system engineering

____ Re-entry/Destruct breakup analysis

____ Flight Safety Ordnance Systems/Subsystems

____ Launch system technology demonstrations

____ Modification of solid rocket motors

____ Launch system anomaly/failure investigation

____ Ballistic missile weapon system technology insertion

____ Other related special studies (indicate type _____________________________________)

B P G Y R N/A

Technical Approach Assessments

TA1. How well did the contractor demonstrate an understanding of refurbishment processes?

TA2. How well did the contractor demonstrate an understanding of aging analysis?

TA3. How successfully did the contractor identify test and analysis requirements?

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 6 of 10

TA4. How well did the contractor provide timely and effective planning of actions to implement test and analysis activities?

TA5. How effective and accurate were the contractor’s technical analyses?

TA6. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts ?

TA7. How effective were the contractor’s risk assessments?

TA8. How well did the contractor develop tools and simulations to meet analysis needs?

TA9. How well did the contractor validate system requirements and verify system compliance with requirements?

TA10. How effective were the contractor’s evaluations of integration verification activities?

TA11. How effective were the contractor’s evaluations of interface verification/control activities?

TA12. How effectively did the contractor plan, execute, and report the results of special studies?

TA13. How effective was the contractor in meeting DIACAP (or NISPOM) Information Assurance requirements?

Service Performance Management Relevance

SPMR1: What was the approximate annual scope of technical/engineer support provided by the contractor for this effort? (please only choose one).

____ >$10M ____ $2M-$10M ____ <$2M

SPMR2: Was the contractor responsible for supporting a transition of services, either as the incoming or outgoing service provider? ___Yes ___No

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 7 of 10

Service Performance Management Assessments

SPM1. How effective was the contractor’s management of the service performed? (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

SPM2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor interface with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

SPM3. How timely and effectively did the contractor share lessons learned?

SPM4. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor interface with associate contractors (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

SPM5. How effectively did the contractor organize work requirements (e.g. development of a work breakdown structure)?

SPM6. How effectively were work requirements scheduled?

SPM7. How successfully did the contractor manage the retention of key personnel during workload fluctuations?

SPM8. How effectively did the contractor initially staff up to meet contract performance requirements?

SPM9. How effectively did the contractor execute information and process interchanges with the incumbent (or the new incoming provider if the contractor was the incumbent) during the transition period?

SPM10. How effectively did the contractor staff required Transition Teams?

SPM11. How effectively did the contractor identify the roles and responsibilities of Key Positions, and secure qualified Key Personnel for them on a timely basis?

SPM12. How effective were contractor proposed cost control and cost reduction methods?

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 8 of 10

2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated B/E (Blue/Exceptional), Y/M (Yellow/Marginal) or R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

3. 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).

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 9 of 10

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Mailing Address:

SD/PKTN

Attn: Steve Wells Contracting Division 3548 Aberdeen Ave SE Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5778

LSMA L102 App C – Rev 0 20 May 2013 Page 10 of 10

E-Mail to: steven.wells@kirtland.af.mil

LSMA L102 App C - Rev 0 – 20 May 2013 Page 1 of 4

Past Performance

Information Form

LSMA L102 App C - Rev 0 – 20 May 2013 Page 2 of 4

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program (citation) being described.

Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. Limit the number of citations submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraphs 2.8 and 5.3 of Clause L102, Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation, of this solicitation.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division): ____________________

CAGE Code:____________________

DUNS Number:____________________

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Contract Title:____________________

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer _____________________________________________

2. Contract Number__________________________________________________________

3. Contract Type __________________________

4. Period of Performance __________________________

5. Original Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

6. Current Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

7. If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason.

LSMA L102 App C - Rev 0 – 20 May 2013 Page 3 of 4

D. Brief Description of Effort as __Prime or __Subcontractor

Please indicate the nature of the service(s) provided and highlight which portion(s) of the effort considered relevant to the LSMA Technical subfactors and criteria.

E. Completion Date:

1. Original date: ____________________

2. Current Schedule: ____________________

3. Estimate at Completion ($): ____________________

4. How Many Times Changed: ____________________

5. Primary Causes of Change: _______________________________________________________

F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles).

1. Program Manager and/or Site Manager:

Name ____________________ Office ____________________

Address________________________________________ Telephone__________________ FAX Number_______________

2. Contracting Officer:

Name ____________________ Office ____________________ Address________________________________________ Telephone__________________ FAX Number_______________

3. Contracting Technical Representative:

Name ____________________ Office ____________________ Address________________________________________

Telephone__________________ FAX Number_______________

LSMA L102 App C - Rev 0 – 20 May 2013 Page 4 of 4

G. Address any technical (or other) area about this contract/program considered unique.

H. For each of the applicable sub-factors under the Technical factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that sub-factor.

I. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the proposed effort. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

J. Include relevant information concerning your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, on the contract you are submitting.

K. Identify whether a subcontracting plan was required by the contract you are submitting. If one was required, identify, in percentage terms, the planned versus achieved goals during contract performance. If goals were not met, please explain.

L. Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor, or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship).

n 6.c.5-L102 Appendix C - Past Performance Information Form Rev 0