HQ0858-21-R-0016_Attachment L-02 PPQ Form 07.22.2021.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ085821R0016
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract solicitation. The past performance questionnaire is a template to be completed by an assessor and contractor regarding the contractor's previous relevant contract performance. It requests information on the customer, contract, assessor, performance ratings definitions, technical and management performance evaluations, and an overall rating.
The federal contract solicitation is for Facilities Lifecycle Management services under the Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support-Next acquisition for the Missile Defense Agency. Services include facility and infrastructure planning, design, construction, operations, site activation, and real property and infrastructure support for the Agency's missile defense system. The solicitation is available on beta.SAM.gov and offers a single Cost-Plus Fixed Fee Level of Effort contract for a base period of three years and five optional periods totaling up to eight and a half years. The NAICS code is 541330 with a small business size standard of $41.5M. Proposals are due by September 17, 2021 and questions by August 25, 2021.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 54 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 Performance Questionnaire
Background: This questionnaire will be used to provide information to support the Missile Defense Agency Facilities Lifecycle Management (FLCM) services procurement, RFP HQ0858-21-R-0016.
Message to the Assessor: Your feedback is requested by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor identified below. To expedite receipt of the requested information, MDA requests that you e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: laura.mabe@mda.mil AND TN-FLCM@mda.mil. Your support and participation in this matter is essential and greatly appreciated!
Instructions for Offeror/Subcontractor and Assessor:
· Sections I and II to be completed by the Offeror/ Subcontractor and provided to the Assessor (the Government personnel that had experience with the Offeror/Subcontractor on a previous relevant contract). The assessor, in turn, to verify Sections I through II, complete the questionnaire, and submit to the Contracting Office.
· Section II to be validated by the assessor. If any information is incorrect herein, please annotate and provide the correct information accordingly.
· Sections III through VI to be completed in their entirety by the assessor.
I. Customer Identification Customer or Agency Name
Customer or Agency Description
Geographic Description of Services Under This Contract (i.e. single location, multiple locations, CONUS (in U.S.), or OCONUS (Outside U.S.)
II. Current or Historical Contract Identification Contractor Name/Address
Contract Number:
Email:
Contract Type:
Initial Period of Performance:
Current/Final Period of Performance:
Initial Contract Value (base only):
Current/final Contract Value (base and exercised options only):
Reason if Initial Contract Value and Current/final Contract Value above are different.
Brief description of services provided
Contractor Role (Prime or Subcontractor)
ASSESSOR: The inform submitted by the company above is: CORRECT ☐ OR INCORRECT ☐
III. Assessor Information Assessor Name
Title
Phone Number/Email Address
Role (examples: PM/PCO/ACO/Contract Specialist/COR/Quality Assurance Specialist, etc.)
Assessor’s number of years working on contract
IV. Assessment Definitions
The following definitions should be used in your assessment of Contractor performance
| RATING |
| RATING DEFINITION |
| EXCEPTIONAL (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD (VG) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| SATISFACTORY (S) |
| 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. |
| MARGINAL (M) |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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 (U) |
| 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. |
| NOT APPLICABLE (N) |
| No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment. |
V. Performance Evaluation
| Technical-Facilities, infrastructure and environmental tasks |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Planning and programming
Siting; Requirements Development and Design and Construction
Site activation and On-site operations
Sustainment
Please provide rationale for the assigned ratings:
All comments are appreciated; however, at a minimum, rationale must be provided for exceptional (E) or Unsatisfactory (U) ratings.
| Management |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel
Ability to solve employee performance problems
Responsiveness (cooperative behavior, teamwork, and customer satisfaction)
Program Management (effective coordination and integration of all activities)
Dispersed Locations (management of personnel in multiple/dispersed locations)
Compliance with contractual small business subcontracting goals
Please provide rationale for the assigned ratings:
All comments are appreciated; however, at a minimum, rationale must be provided for exceptional (E) or Unsatisfactory (U) ratings.
Overall Rating of Contractor’s performance (Technical and Management) on contract being assessed:
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Overall Rating (Technical and Management Combined)
VI. General Comments:
Assessor’s Signature Date
FOR SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104 –
CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (WHEN FILLED IN)
Approved for Public Release 21-MDA-10882 (11JUL2021)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .