L_Appendix_C_4--_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc

SECTION L Appendix C

Past Performance

Questionnaire

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): __________________________________________

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 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

____ 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 _____________________________________)

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?

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

Service Performance Management Assessments

SPM1.

How effective was overall contract management (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 work 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?

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).

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/PKTS Attn: Cecilia Cantú Contracting Division

3548 Aberdeen Ave SE

Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5778

E-Mail to: cecilia.cantu@kirtland.af.mil LSMA L102 App C – 20 April 2012