The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Attachment L-2: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to
Aerospace Systems Technical Research & Operations Support Services (ASTROS) Section L
RFP # FA9300-15-R-0001
Date: 11 June 2015
This attachment including the cover page consists of 7 pages
Attachment L-2: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
When filled in, this document is source selection sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104
SUBJECT: Request for Past and Present Performance Evaluation
TO:
You have been identified as a point of contact for a past performance evaluation of the firm listed on the attached questionnaire. This firm is currently being considered for the Aerospace Systems Technical Research and Operations Services (ASTROS) effort contract at Edwards AFB, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/RQ West). The purpose of ASTROS is to advance rocket propulsion research and development (R&D) by obtaining affordable and responsive buildup/modification of rocket test stands and facility operations while maintaining safety and security.
Your prompt attention to this questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. We depend on information received from agencies such as yours, which have had firsthand experience with an offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror’s performance.
If you have any questions concerning this request, I can be contacted at (661) 277-2101 or email at jeffory.mohan@us.af.mil. You can also reach the contract specialist for this effort, Joshua Vasquez, at (661) 277-8213 or email at joshua.vasquez.5@us.af.mil.
| JEFFORY L. MOHAN | Contracting Officer |
| Directorate of Contracting | | |
Attachment Past and Present Performance Questionnaire
PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Please correct any information below known to be inaccurate:
Contractor’s Name:
Fax:
Email:
Point of Contact:
(The government enters the following information based on list of references provided by the offeror. The offeror will enter this information if the solicitation requires him to submit questionnaires to the references.)
Contract number*:
Contract period or dates of performance*:
Project title and brief description of work:
Dollar amount:
*Provided by Offorer
Contractor (Offorer) performed as the Prime Contractor Sub-Contractor Key Personnel
Note: If offeror holds or has held other contracts with your agency/organization in the last 5 years, please complete separate evaluation forms for those contracts as well.
B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION:
Name/Title of Respondent:
Fax:
Email:
C. PROVIDE COMPLETED SURVEY FORM TO:
| Joshua Vasquez (661-277-8213) |
| Joshua.vasquez.5@us.af.mil |
D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate letter on the scale (E, G, S, M, U, and N) that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation.
PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF M or U.
Ratings Definition Table
| Quality Assessment Rating |
| Description |
EXCEPTIONAL (E)
Performance meets/met contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
| GOOD (G) |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| SATISFACTORY (S) |
| Performance meets/met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| MARGINAL (M) |
| Performance does not meet/did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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. |
| UNSATISFACTORY (U) |
| Performance does not meet/did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| NEUTRAL (N) |
| Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against. |
| Please complete by placing an "X" in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix above |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Program Performance
| 1 |
| Retained key on-site personnel to meet contract requirements |
| 2 |
| Ability to recruit and retain specialized, critical and unique personnel to maintain a stable high-quality work force |
| 3 |
| If Contractor was NOT the incumbent, Contractor retained critical personnel from the previous contractor |
| 4 |
| Corporate/Home office ability to address/solve local management performance problems while assuring the appropriate skill set for on-site management |
| 5 |
| Contractor’s ability to effectively coordinate, integrate & manage subcontractors |
| 6 |
| Contractor’s ability to provide seamless transition between outgoing and incoming employees |
| 7 |
| Contractor’s responsiveness to changes in technical direction |
| 8 |
| Overall ability to perform technical work |
| 9 |
| Contractor’s transition or phase-in effectiveness |
| 10 |
| Accuracy/timeliness of deliverables (reports, etc.) |
| 11 |
| Responsiveness to customer enquiries |
| 12 |
| Contractor’s ability to address performance problems |
| 13 |
| Demonstrated use of WAWF |
| 14 |
| Contractor's responsiveness to positive or negative budget changes and handling of related personnel fluctuations |
Technical Performance
| 15 |
| Contractor demonstrated expert knowledge of and innovative approaches to facility design/ fabrication, to include handling high pressure gases; cryogenics; or chemical & propellant combinations considered toxic, volatile, flammable, shock-sensitive, spark‑sensitive, heat-sensitive, light-sensitive, or explosive |
| 16 |
| Contractor demonstrated competence in handling explosives, including approaches for static grounding, transportation, storage compatibility, and general handling |
| 17 |
| Contractor demonstrated competence regarding the operation, maintenance, and repair of mechanically-driven and steam-driven vacuum systems? |
| 18 |
| Contractor response when technical problems were encountered |
| 19 |
| Contractor demonstrated competence with regard to the repair and service of flow components (e.g. valves) |
| 20 |
| Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts |
Management Information System (MIS) and Purchasing
| 21 |
| Adequacy of accounting in MIS demonstrating current, accurate and complete billing |
| 22 |
| Customer-transparency and overall utility of Contractor’s MIS for appropriate user levels |
| 23 |
| MIS ability to interface with Excel for generating reports |
| 24 |
| Use of MIS for multiple, separate accounting sources (e.g., CLIN, ACRN, WBS) with each related to specific work |
| 25 |
| Demonstrated compliance with customer approval system for purchases while maintaining timely procurement |
| 26 |
| Contractor’s cost-efficient practices in purchasing (e.g., multiple quotes, lowest cost for equivalent items) |
| 27 |
| Overall Contractor’s purchasing practices |
| 28 |
| Contractor demonstrated capability to identify and allocate all overhead and indirect costs to specific WBS elements |
| 29 |
| Effective cost management of subcontractors |
| 30 |
| Paid employees/subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner without impacting overall contract performance |
Safety and Security
| 31 |
| Integration of on-site safety policies with Contractor policies |
| 32 |
| Ability to manage safety incidents/emergencies including implementation of corrective action (e.g., training) |
| 33 |
| Contractor ability to integrate with on-site security policies (e.g., computer/IT) |
| 34 |
| Contractor’s management of personnel certifications/training |
| 35 |
| Effective management of intellectual property and government data rights |
| 36 |
| Contractor’s security performance and security policies |
| 37 |
| Contractor's ability to perform in a mixed data handling environment (e.g. public release, ITAR-restricted, and classified data) |
| 38 |
| Contractor’s overall safety record |
Communication
| 39 |
| Contractor effectiveness to interface/communicate with government personnel (e.g., technical, program management, and contracting) |
| 40 |
| Contractor effectiveness in interfacing/communicating within its organization |
| 41 |
| Contractor’s reasonableness, cooperation, and commitment to customer satisfaction |
Subcontracting
| 42 |
| Contractor’s record of awarding subcontracts to small businesses, to include small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, to the fullest extent practicable consistent with efficient contract performance |
Overarching Questions
| 43 |
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “remarks.” |
YES/NO
ASTROS Section L: Attachment L-2 “Past Performance Questionnaire” Page 1 of 7