Atch_7PPQ_Questionnaire_Interview.docx

USSOCOM Source Selection Procedures Supplement

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Past Performance Interview Questionnaire and Documentation

Conducting Telephone Interviews. The interviewing of past performance references provided by the offeror and reporting of past performance results usually consists of individual efforts conducted by selected SSEB members. However, it is sometimes helpful to collect information as a group through the use of conference calls. When conducting conference calls, at least two references should be contacted on each previous contract effort selected for in-depth assessment. The current or previous Contracting Officer, Program Manager, or Contracting Officer Representative, whoever has the most relevant experience on the contract, often proves to be an excellent source of information. Additional references are often identified during these interviews and can be contacted to provide more information. Maximum effectiveness occurs when the expertise of the team interviewer matches that of the reference.

SSEB members should focus their questions towards those areas which are important to the USSOCOM Requiring Activity under the current RFP requirements. Questions should focus on such areas as the Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statements (PWS) requirements, quality of services and deliverables provided, timeliness of performance and deliveries, and management of costs (cost-type). Following the interviews you will need to compare the information gathered for each relevant contract and help determine how the offeror will likely perform under the current RFP requirements.

HOSTILE FORCES – TAGGING, TRACKING AND LOCATING TECHNICAL AND TRAINING SERVICES

H92222-16-R-0028

Interview Questionnaire Template

Offeror: ______________________________

Source of Contract Contact: _______________(i.e., PPIRs; Volume III Information Sheet; Other) Contract/Order Number of Past Performance:_____________________________

Name of Respondent being Interviewed ________________________ and Title:_________________ Company/Organization:________________________ Telephone Number: _______________ E-mail: ____________________

Contract being discussed;

Cost: ______________ Type________________ Magnitude of Effort__________________

Recency: ____________________________ (insert Period of Performance (PoP)) Services performed the same or similar, i.e. specifically, Systems Engineering, Supportability, and Management Organizational Structure/Teaming Arrangements

For prime contractors, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort i.e. insert program specifics. Example: Diversity of required expertise, system design, development, integration, qualification/performance verification, analyzing requirements in relation to the Factor 1 subfactors, contract type, actual special operations support.

Relevant VR R SR or NR (Insert comments backing up rating) ______________________________________________________________________

Rate each of the following questions using the below categories based upon interviews.

Technical Capability and Management Expertise-Targets (Should target your most important requirements in your PWS/SOW and your Technical Factor 1)

Fulfilled requirements of the PWS/SOW

Offerors’ work measured up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards

Managed a geographically diverse workforce located in both Government and Contractor facilities

Worked in an integrated team environment

Management minimized layers of ineffective management and oversight

The management team was responsive and professional.

Effectively solved problems (How involved must the KO/PM be in day to day issues to resolve contractor issues); Did the contractor management get issues resolved at the lowest levels?)

Organizational Structure and Rationale-Targets Factor 1 Subfactors and Quality Areas

Responsibility and authority for controlling, reporting, and reviewing work is logical and effective and eliminates redundancy

Effective streamlining decision-making while maintaining accountability

Offerors’ solutions to problems were timely and effective

Offeror was flexible in responding to changing needs, including surge/sag capacity and reach-back capability for subject matter experts and key personnel

The offeror provided accurate, current and complete data and reports that met the required timeline—Target Schedule

Key Management Positions-Targets Factor 1

Provided relevant experience as managers on similar contracts

Demonstrated customer interfacing skills and people-oriented styles

Demonstrated appropriate education and training in key management positions

Workforce-Skilled Personnel including Security Clearances-Targets Factor 1

Recruited, hired and maintained a high-quality workforce across the full spectrum of PWS/SOW requirements

Implemented and maintained effective processes for obtaining fully approved security clearances

Implemented innovative approaches for staffing, including application of lessons learned in similar environments

Implemented a Security Process Plan for protecting information, including personnel, processes, and infrastructure

Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Targets and Proposed Teaming Arrangements (required to evaluate unless SB set aside)

Met small business goals as required by the contract

Offeror demonstrated efforts devoted to developing and managing effective subcontracts

Offeror integrated subcontractors as part of the prime contractor’s team

Offeror avoiding or managed organizational conflicts of interest as appropriate

Cost Factor Focused

Complied with CAS and other applicable federal financial regulations

Adequate accounting system

Approved purchasing system

Minimized pass-through charges

Managed and controlled costs in accordance with proposed rates

Audit history sound

Approved provisional rates current

What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Would you award a similar contract to this company? Yes____ No ____ Maybe ____ image1.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet1.xlsx DefinitionsRatings

Exceptional/blue Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Very Good/Purple Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory/Green Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Yellow/Marginal Performance does 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. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory/Red Performance does 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.