Sec L Atch L-4b Past Performance Questionnaire 04.25.12.docx

Attachement L-4b Solicitation #HQ0147-11-R-0006

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104)

TO REFERENCE: (Enter name of reference entity the questionnaire is being sent to)

REFERENCE’S PHONE NUMBER:

REFERENCE’S EMAIL:

FROM REQUESTING FIRM:

(Name of Firm and contact information of the person requesting the accomplishment of the questionnaire.)

Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is in the process of soliciting offers from companies capable of providing Upgraded Early Warning Radar & COBRA DANE (UEWR & CD) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Integration & Test. [Our firm] has provided your name and organization as a reference regarding our record of past performance under Contract No. [CONTRACT NO.].

Please complete this Questionnaire and forward a PDF copy to Mr. Robert Berkey (Contracting Officer), at Bob.Berkey@mda.mil).

Our firm is competing for Solicitation #HQ0147-11-R-0006 as a:

Prime Contractor

When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.

SECTION I - TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR

1. CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS:

2. CONTRACT NO.:

3. CAGE CODE:

4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

5. COMPETITIVELY AWARDED (circle one) YES or NO

6. INITIAL CONTRACT VALUE (with options): $

7. CURRENT CONTRACT VALUE (with options): $

8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:

9. REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE (IF ANY) BETWEEN INITIAL CONTRACT VALUE AND CURRENT CONTRACT VALUE:

10. DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS:

Please add a continuation page if additional space necessary.

SECTION II - EVALUATION - TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE

13. EVALUATOR’S TITLE:

14. EVALUATOR’S PHONE NUMBER:

15. EVALUATOR’S EMAIL ADDRESS:

16. NUMBER OF YRS OR MONTHS EVALUATOR HAS MONITORED CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE:

17A. INDIVIDUAL RATINGS 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:

SECTION III 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

TP1. Ability to plan, manage, execute, and analyze the results for a complex test effort

TP2. Ability to develop and manage key test milestones for a complex test effort

TP3. Ability to maintain document and data configuration control for a complex test effort

TP4. Ability to generate, collect, manage, and analyze copious test results according to schedule

TP5. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts

TP6. Quality and repeatability of software/hardware deployment

TP7. Quality of Information Assurance testing, radar software/hardware verification testing and system certification support

TP8. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements

P1. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

P2. Responsiveness to government requests and work with the program office to establish a plan (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

P3. Provided a robust system engineering approach for all aspects of the system hardware and software install

P4. Managed customer set objective technical solutions to avoid significant delays and increased costs

P5. Successfully responded to emergency and/or surge situations

P6. Effectively managed sub-contractors. Potential schedule conflicts involving multiple sub-contractors were resolved and avoided delays and/or cost overruns.

P7. Effectiveness of material handling and management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)

P8. Effectiveness of data generation, handling, management, configuration control, and analysis for tests geographically distributed across multiple test sites

P9. Proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

P10. Implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support

P11. Provided Integrated Master Schedule and accomplished project as proposed in their IMS. They provided sound understanding and demonstrated executability throughout their period of performance.

T1. Ability to smoothly transition resources and personnel while not interrupting operational mission

T2. Effectiveness of maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support development efforts throughout the life of the program

E1. Ability to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort.

E2. Ability to retain a qualified workforce on this effort.

E3. Effectiveness of employee compensation towards quality of work.

C1. 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 . Realistic in their approach to costing the project and was able to meet forecasted costs -- understanding of the project lowered extra cost risk

C3. Ability to alert the Government of unforeseen costs before they occurred

C4. Provided cost reports on time, within the specifications of the contract, and was responsive to questions or actions stemming from their reports

1. 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).

2. Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc).

SECTION IV: 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.

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.

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:

Mr. Robert Berkey Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Contracts Directorate – MDA/DACX Building 5224, Martin Road Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-0001