PPQ.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Multidiscipline Architecture and Engineering (A-E) Services IDIQ for Kirtland AFB, NM Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA9401-10-R-0011
About this file
PPQ and Instructions
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS.pdf | ||
| A-E IDIQ SOW.pdf | ||
| QUESTIONS and ANSWERS | — | |
| QUESTIONS and ANSWERS | — | |
| QUESTIONS and ANSWERS | — | |
| QUESTIONS and ANSWERS | — | |
| QUESTIONS and ANSWERS | — |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Multidiscipline A-E IDIQ Kirtland AFB, NM Solicitation Number: FA9401-10-R-0011
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
In compliance with the direction in the FAR, the information contained in this evaluation is not subject to view by anyone other than the designated source selection evaluation personnel.
INSTRUCTIONS, DEFINITIONS, AND RATING GUIDELINES
Instructions
This evaluation is to be completed as indicated below. Provide one evaluation for each of the projects listed as “Example Projects” in Section F of the completed Standard Form 330. For purposes of these evaluations, the term “contract” is intended to mean “project”. This package consists of the following:
| Section |
| Description |
| Who completes |
| Section I |
| Basic contract information |
| Architect/Engineer (A/E) being evaluated |
| Section II |
| Evaluator identification information |
| Client’s Evaluator |
| Section III |
| Contractor Performance Report |
| Client’s Evaluator |
Clients shall submit Past Performance Reports before Proposal due date.
Any questions may be directed to AFNWC/PKOC Contracts Specialist, Alex Riebli at (505) 846-5713 or alex.riebli@kirtland.af.mil.
Section I
To be completed by A/E requesting evaluation.
Contract Number:
Contract Title:
A/E’s Company Name:
Contract Award Date:
Contract Completion Date (including options):
Section II
To be completed by Client’s Evaluator.
Evaluator’s Company/Agency Name:
Evaluator’s Name (Printed):
Evaluator’s Signature:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail address:
Date:
Section III
Definitions and Rating Guidelines
The Factors/Ratings tables on the next page summarize the Architect/Engineer’s past performance in each of the following rating areas. Each criterion should be assigned a rating, from highest to lowest, of Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. If a particular criterion is not applicable, it should be rated in the far right column as N/A. The evaluator must provide comments in the “Narrative Summary” section on any rating that either exceeds or is less than “Satisfactory.”
The following definitions and instructions should be used as guidance to aid in evaluating the criteria in the Factors/Ratings tables. Please read the definitions and instructions before rating any criteria to be sure that each criterion is graded in the context of the definitions.
| Technical Performance |
| Cost Control |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Management Effectiveness |
· Compliance with contract requirement
· Appropriateness of personnel
· Technical excellence
· Responsive to technical direction
· Effectiveness of recommended solutions
· Within budget (over/under target costs)
· Current, accurate, and complete cost reporting
· Cost efficiencies
· Met interim schedule milestones
· Requirement of contract was delivered on time
· Contract administrative activities performed timely
· Reliable
· Pro-active
· Reasonable and cooperative
· Flexible
· Prompt notification of problems
· Effective management of subcontractors
· Accuracy of reports
· Communicated well throughout the contract
The four headings above relate to the actual ratings defined on the following pages.
Section III (Cont’d)
| Technical Performance |
| Cost Control |
| Timeliness of Performance |
| Management Effectiveness |
Excellent
The A/E has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in any of the above categories that justified additional consideration. This rating will be used only in those circumstances when A/E performance clearly exceeded the Very Good performance level.
Very Good
| There were no quality problems. |
| There were no cost issues. |
| There were no delays. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were effective and responsive. |
Satisfactory
| Non-conformances or technical issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were usually effective and responsive. |
Marginal
| Non-conformances or technical issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were somewhat effective and responsive. |
Unsatisfactory
| Non-conformances or technical issues compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Client’s resources. |
| Cost issues compromised performance of contract requirements. |
| Delays compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite the use of Client’s resources. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were not effective and not responsive. |
Section III (Cont’d) Item
FACTORS/RATINGS
Excellent
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Not Applicable |
| 1 |
| Overall skill level & technical competence of A/E’s personnel? |
| 2 |
| Ability to identify risk factors and alternatives for alleviating risk? |
| 3 |
| Ability to identify and solve problems expeditiously? |
| 4 |
| Ability to accurately control contract cost (if the contract experienced an overrun, please explain on the following page)? |
| 5 |
| Did the A/E diligently search for and apply cost efficient practices? |
| 6 |
| Were A/E’s cost estimates accurate and complete? |
| 7 |
| Completion of major tasks or key project milestones on schedule? |
| 8 |
| Did the A/E deliver end items per the contract schedule? |
| 9 |
| Were the A/E’s reports and documentation submitted timely? |
| 10 |
| Was the A/E able to effectively coordinate, integrate & manage subcontractors? |
| 11 |
| Did the A/E management team show innovation and a proactive approach to problem identification and resolution? |
| 12 |
| Was the A/E effective in interfacing with the Client’s staff? |
| 13 |
| Was the documentation produced by the A/E satisfactory? |
| 14 |
| A/E’s responsiveness to Client’s changes? |
| 15 |
| To what extent did the A/E display initiative in meeting requirements? |
| 16 |
| Did the A/E effectively communicate pertinent issues throughout the contract? |
| 17 |
| How would you rate the A/E’s overall management performance on this contract? |
| 18 |
| How would you rate the A/E’s overall technical performance on this contract? |
| 19 |
| Would you use this A/E again? (If “No”, please comment in the Narrative Summary) |
| Yes |
| No |
Section III (Cont’d)
NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to explain any rating from the previous page that either exceeded or were less than “Satisfactory”)
If additional narrative is required please feel free to attach additional pages.
| Item |
| Comments |
PAST PERFORMANCE FORM LETTER EXAMPLE
Multidiscipline A-E IDIQ Kirtland AFB, NM Solicitation Number: FA9401-10-R-0011
CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER: FORMAT
[Date of Letter] [Name and Address of A/E’s Client] Attention: [Name and Designation of Client’s Evaluator]
Dear [Contact Name]:
We are currently responding to the Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) Request for Qualification (RFQ) (Multidiscipline A-E IDIQ Solicitation Number FA9401-10-R-0011). Kirtland AFB (insert number and title of RFP). Kiris requesting that clients of entities responding to the solicitation participate in the evaluation process. We have included our project for your company/agency as a past performance reference. An Architect/Engineer Past Performance Report is enclosed. Please complete Sections II and III of the enclosed evaluation and return the signed, completed document to:
AFNWC/PKOC
Attn: Alex Riebli/Gilbert Martinez 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE Bldg 20604, RM D-17 Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5606
In order to maintain the source selection integrity of this process, DO NOT return the Questionnaire to us. Return it to the address listed above.
The completed Questionnaire must be received by Kirtland AFB before the proposal due date (insert due date noted in the RFP).
Please direct any questions to this RFQ’s Contract Specialist, Alex Riebli at (505) 846-5713.
Sincerely, [Name of Signer] [Designation of Signer]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .