The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
HQ0147-09-R-0006
Attachment 3
Past and Present Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) Background Information (for person filling out the survey):
| Name: |
| Rank and Service, if Military: |
| Phone (commercial, not DSN): |
| FAX: |
| E-Mail Address: |
| Dates of Involvement |
| From: | To: |
Mailing Address:
Contract Information (for the contract involved):
| Company Being Rated: |
| Contract Number: |
| Division, if any: |
| Total Contract Value: $ |
| Brief Description of Work: |
| Complete |
Ongoing
| Award date: |
| End Item Description(s) (In addition to describing end item deliverable, please indicate any significant products/service delivered in the past five years): |
Any Major Milestones (Ex: Developmental, Acceptance, Integration, Operational, Flight Tests - list only those which have occurred in the past 5 years):
On Target Above Estimate by
On Ahead by months
Signature (Print Name and Sign):
Date:
Based on your knowledge of the contract identified above, please provide your assessment of how well the contractor performed on each of the following topics. Only performance in the past 5 years is relevant. (Please check the appropriate rating and comment on all responses other than those rated Satisfactory or N/A)
Performance Rating Definitions:
| Exceptional (1) |
| Very Good (2) |
| Satisfactory (3) |
| Marginal (4) |
| Unsatisfactory (5) |
| N/A |
| Indicates performance clearly exceeded requirements. Area of evaluation contains few minor problems for which corrective action appears highly effective |
| Indicates performance exceeded some requirements. Area of evaluation contains few minor problems for which corrective action appears effective |
| Indicates performance clearly meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains some minor problems for which the corrective actions appear satisfactory |
| Indicates performance meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains a serious problem for which corrective actions have not yet been identified, appear only marginally effective, or have not been fully implemented |
| Indicates the contractor is in danger of not being able to satisfy contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The area of evaluation contains serious problems for which the corrective actions appear ineffective |
| Not Applicable |
Mission Support For contracts that support airborne sensor operations; to include pre-mission planning, mission execution and post mission data processing, analysis and reporting.
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 1 |
| Contractor effectively identified and analyzed mission readiness problems and provided adequate and timely corrective actions. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 2 |
| Contractor consistently provided viable mission alternatives to new requirements within the time specified by the customer. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 3 |
| Contractor refines mission requirements to ensure customer needs are met. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 4 |
| Contractor demonstrated effective response to problems and changes to mission requirements. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 5 |
| Contractor demonstrated understanding/ability to perform complex post-mission data processing and reporting. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Mission Assurance For contracts that perform mission operations and sustainment (O&S) and improvement and modernization (I&M) activities; including but not limited to configuration management, risk management, software development and logistics support
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 6 |
| Contractor used established, efficient system engineering processes. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 7 |
| Contractor’s system engineering processes were responsive to changes in the mission. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 8 |
| Contractor consistently provided viable system engineering alternatives to new requirements. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 9 |
| Contractor refines system engineering requirements to ensure customer needs are met. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 10 |
| Contractor demonstrated effective response to problems and changes in system engineering requirements |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Technical Development For contracts that support the development of aircraft modification and/or complex airborne sensor technology platforms.
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 11 |
| Contractor effectively identified and analyzed conceptual problems and provided adequate and timely corrective actions. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 12 |
| Contractor consistently provided viable alternative concepts to new requirements within the time specified by the customer. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 13 |
| Contractor refines concepts to ensure customer needs are met. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 14 |
| Contractor demonstrated effective response to problems and changes in concepts. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Management Approach/Facilities For all contracts.
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 15 |
| Contractor used established, efficient business processes. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 16 |
| Contractor’s business processes were responsive to changes in the mission. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 17 |
| Contractor used an integrated management approach successfully in performance of the contract (i.e. tied cost, schedule, and technical performance together). |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 18 |
| Contractor proactively informed the customer of activities status and potential concerns. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 19 |
| Contractor chose a subcontractor(s) who added value to the program. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 20 |
| Contractor maintained effective communication with and management of subcontractors. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Management Approach/Facilities continued
| 21 |
| Contractor effectively integrated their subcontractor(s) into the program. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 22 |
| Contractor effectively managed multiple Delivery Order/Task Orders. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 23 |
| Contractor provided adequate facilities |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Transition For all contracts that acquired follow-on services.
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 24 |
| Contractor effectively planned and executed the contract transition. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 25 |
| Contractor’s plan allowed your unit to maintain a high level of performance during the transition period. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Staffing
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 26 |
| Contractor was able to apply proper resources (e.g. staffing, skill mix, tools, etc.) to resolve problems in a timely manner. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 27 |
| Contractor provided adequate documentation and training. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
Cost
| # |
| PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT |
| PERFORMANCE RATING |
| COMMENTS |
| 28 |
| Contractor accurately forecasted contract costs, including future costs. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 29 |
| Contractor developed and met realistic project cost estimates. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 30 |
| Contractor displayed initiative and resourcefulness in controlling fringe benefit costs. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 31 |
| Contractor promptly alerted Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 32 |
| Contractor effectively handled unforeseen cost increases. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 33 |
| Contractor provided cost reporting that was accurate and timely. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 34 |
| Contractor paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 35 |
| Contractor provided accurate, complete, and timely cost proposals reflecting all aspects of work for the required effort. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 36 |
| Contractor employed an Earned Value Management System (EVMS), provided accurate EVMS reporting, and effectively used EVMS to manage the contract. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| NA |
| 37 |
| I would hire this Offeror again. |
| YES or NO (Comments, if any) |
DOD Missile Defense Agency