Attachment - 3_Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.pdf

PDF 450 KB Posted

Attached to
Steam Generator AFRL West
Solicitation number
FA930025R6001
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire issued by the Air Force Test Center of the Air Force Material Command (AFMC) for a steam generator design, build, and installation requirement. The questionnaire is part of a competitive source selection process for solicitation number FA930025R6001, seeking to evaluate potential contractors' past performance through a comprehensive assessment across multiple performance areas including technical capabilities, program management, transition/phase-in processes, employee retention, small business participation, and cost performance. The document provides a detailed rating scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with space for supporting information, and is designed to help the government determine a contractor's ability to successfully execute the proposed steam generator project at Area 1-42 at AFRL Edwards AFB, California. The solicitation targets commercial products/services with a potential NAICS code of 335312 (Motor and Generator Manufacturing), a small business size standard of 1,250 employees, and an estimated performance/delivery period of 81 weeks after receipt of order.

View the file

Other files

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Controlled Unclassified Information When completed, this document is Source Selection Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 1 of 8

The Air Force Test Center of the Air Force Material Command (AFMC) is in the process of competitively selecting a source for a steam generator design, build and installation requirement.

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 28 June 2025. 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 tyler.pittmon@us.af.mil and suzanna.kussman@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.

TYLER K. PITTMON

Contracting Officer, Air Force Test Center

1 Attachment:

Past Performance Questionnaire 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 mailto:tyler.pittmon@us.af.mil mailto:suzanna.kussman@us.af.mil

Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 2 of 8

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 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

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 3 of 8

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 Information

In the tables 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. 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.

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 4 of 8

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.

Technical Performance E V S M U N/A

T1. How well did the contractor meet the technical requirements of the specification?

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

T2. How was the quality of technical system operations & maintenance testing and certification efforts?

T3. How was the quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts?

T4. How adequate/effective was the System Engineering Process?

T5. How well did the contractor implement current quality processes, standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?

T6. How well did the contractor implement current standard practices for computer software design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control?

T7. How adequate/effective were the contractor’s environmental safety procedures?

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 5 of 8

Program Management E V S M U N/A

P1. How effective was overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, control and deliver on-time)?

P2. How reasonable and cooperative was the contractor when dealing with program staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)?

P3. How timely and effectively did the contractor resolve contract problems without extensive customer guidance?

P4. How well did the contractor understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements?

P5. How successfully did the contractor respond to emergency and/or surge situations?

P6. How well did the contractor manage quality/effectiveness of subcontracted efforts?

P7. How effective was the contractor’s material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)?

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 6 of 8

Program Management E V S M U N/A

P8. How effective was the contractor’s acquisition management?

P9. Of what benefit to the customer were contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors?

P10. To what degree did the contractor implement responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support?

Transition / Phase-in E V S M U N/A

TP1. How smoothly did the contractor transition resources and personnel?

TP2. How effective was the contractor in maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts?

Employee Retention / Attraction E V S M U N/A

E1. How effectively was the contractor able to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort?

E2. How effectively was the contractor able to retain a qualified workforce on this effort?

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 7 of 8

Employee Retention / Attraction E V S M U N/A

E3. How effective was employee compensation towards quality of work?

Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation E V S M U N/A

S1. If the contract included FAR 52.219-9, to what degree was the contractor able to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan?

(Please state if FAR 52.219-9 was not included in the contract)

S2. If the contract included FAR 52.219-8, how effectively did the contractor manage small business participation to meet technical performance?

(Please state if FAR 52.219-8 was not included in the contract)

Cost Performance E V S M U N/A

C1. How accurately did the contractor forecast contract costs?

C2. How well did the contractor meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs?

C3. How successfully did the contractor alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred?

C4. How sufficient and timely was the contractor’s cost reporting?

Controlled Unclassified Information Page 8 of 8

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: 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 him 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:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .