Atch L4 - Clear-Cod Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Clear / Cod Upgrade EWR (UEWR)
- Solicitation number
- HQ0147-11-R-0002
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
Atch L4 - Clear-Cod Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 51 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104
SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
A. Contractor: ________________________________________________________________________________
B. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to: _________________________________
C. Contract number: _______________________________________
D. Contract type: ______________________________
E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____
F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________
G. Initial contract cost: $____________________________
H. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________
I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs: ____________________________
J. Description of service provided: ________________________________________________________________
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: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION
A. Evaluator's name: ______________________________________________________________________________________ B. Evaluator's title: ______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Evaluator's phone/fax number: ___________________________________________________________________
Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________
SECTION 4: EVALUATION
Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:
CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL
| B | BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government benefit. The contract performance specification was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The contractor was pro-active in identification of problems, providing alternatives and recommendations. |
| P | PURPLE/VERY GOOD- Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some expectations. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| G | GREEN/SATISFACTORY – Quality of performance met contractual requirements. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Y | YELLOW/MARGINAL – Quality of performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contract scope of work had some serious problems which the contractor did not resolve to the customer’s satisfaction. The contractor’s proposed corrective actions appeared to be only marginally effective or were not fully implemented by the contractor. |
| R | RED/UNSATISFACTORY – Quality of performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contract scope of work performance had major problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| N | NOT APPLICABLE - The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the evaluation. |
| Technical Performance |
| B |
| P |
| G |
| Y |
| R |
| N |
T1. Quality & repeatability of radar software/hardware deployment, test, and integration to include scalability, flexibility, extensibility, and robustness of the design.
T2. Ability to develop, upgrade and integrate radar software utilizing a robust process which minimizes software defects, development and implementation time, and software lifecycle sustainment costs.
T3. Demonstrated understanding of Information Assurance testing, radar software/hardware verification testing and system certification/accreditation process as defined in the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP), 8510.01 for a MAC I Classified system.
T4. Demonstrated understanding of hardware obsolescence and ability to design a plan allowing for retrofit without significant re-engineering or sustaining engineering costs.
T5. Demonstrated understanding of requirements, design and construction process involved with major modifications to existing operational facilities and ability to interface with an integrating contractor.
T6. Ability to implement current standard practices for radar system software design, upgrades and configuration control
T7. Adequacy/effectiveness of environmental safety procedures
T8. Ability to transfer developmental radar software/hardware to the government for sustained operations and maintenance
| Program Management |
| B |
| P |
| G |
| Y |
| R |
| N |
P1. Contractor provided a robust system engineering approach for all aspects of the system hardware and software install that was sound and executable in all aspects to include at a minimum Configuration Management (CM), Data Management (DM), Risk (and opportunity) Management and evidence of current Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) assessments.
P2. Effectiveness of overall program management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program). The Contractor demonstrated the ability to determine the sufficiency of the technical and management expertise, and personnel loading throughout the duration of this contract to ensure successful completion of this effort.
P3. Contractor provided Integrated Master Schedule and accomplished project as proposed in their IMS. They provided sound understanding and demonstrated executability throughout their period of performance.
P4. Contractor effectively managed sub-contractors. Potential schedule conflicts involving multiple sub-contractors were resolved and avoided delays and/or cost overruns
P5. Effectiveness of material handling and management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)
P6. Contractor was responsive to government requests and worked with the program office to establish a plan (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes).
P7. Contractor managed customer set objective technical solutions to avoid significant delays and increased costs.
P8. Successfully responded to emergency and/or surge situations.
P9. Contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support.
P10. Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer
| Small Business Participation |
| B |
| P |
| G |
| Y |
| R |
| N |
S1. Contractor met or exceeded small business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan.
S2. Contractor effectively managed small business participation to meet technical performance.
| Cost Performance |
| B |
| P |
| G |
| Y |
| R |
| N |
C1. Contractor provided reasonable estimates/proposals for work assigned. Direct, indirect and overhead costs were logically blended and did not require substantial adjustments from the government.
C2. Contractor was realistic in their approach to costing the project and was able to meet forecasted costs. Their understanding of the project lowered additional cost risk.
C3. Contractor was able to alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred.
C4. Contractor provided timely cost reports, within the specifications of the contract, and was responsive to questions or actions stemming from their reports.
2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated B/E (Blue/Exceptional), Y/M (Yellow/Marginal) or R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).
3. Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been 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, etc).
SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Would you solicit this contractor or have them perform one of your critical and demanding programs in the future? Please explain why or why not.
Describe the aspect of the contractor’s performance that you felt was the weakest?
Describe the aspect of the contractor’s performance that you felt was the strongest?
Was there any point during the contract that you felt the contractor was unsuited to fulfill their obligation? If so, describe the circumstances. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Did the contractor fully adhere to government direction during the contract? If not, please clarify.
Did the contractor ever object to tasks that they deemed outside of the scope of their contract? If so, please clarify.
Does the Contractor establish a Supplier-Government partnership of transparency, unfettered and unrestricted access, open communication of problems, and root cause analysis/corrective action in both policy and practice? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please expound on the amount of government oversight the contractor needed to successfully complete the contract.
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.
| _ | ||
| Evaluator’s Signature | Date |
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
Mailing Address:
Missile Defense Agency ATTN: Ms. Carol Rivard/MDA/DACX MDA Source Selection Facility Source Selection Support Team, RFP HQ0147-11-R-0002 C/O Building 1614 UEWR Program Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
Or FAX to:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .