Att L2 PPQ Form 20 Feb 20.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-20-R-0001
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template and information on a related federal contract opportunity. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by an assessor and contractor and will be used to evaluate offerors for the C3PO contract. The C3PO contract is a cost-plus fixed fee level of effort contract with the Missile Defense Agency for executive-level research, analysis, advice, and product development in areas including contracting, compliance, cost/price analysis, and procurement operations support. The contract period is for a base of two years and up to three additional one-year options and a sixth month extension. The solicitation was issued on February 20, 2020 with a proposal due date of March 23, 2020. The contract will be a total small business set-aside and awarded based on best value. Offerors must register in the System for Award Management to be eligible for award.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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 Contracts, Compliance, Cost/Price, and Operations (C3PO) services procurement, RFP HQ0858-20-R-0001
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: joshua.kachelman@mda.mil AND C3PO@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
| PERFORMANCE LEVEL |
| DESCRIPTION |
| EXCEPTIONAL (E) |
| The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD (VG) |
| The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| SATISFACTORY (S) |
| The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained 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 contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| NOT APPLICABLE (N) |
| Unable to provide a score |
V. Performance Evaluation
| Technical |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Experience in reviewing, formulating, and promulgating contracting policy
Experience in Source Selection advisory support
Experience in executing cost/price analysis for sole source procurements
Experience in providing acquisition procurement operations for program planning, policy, program execution, and acquisition strategy support functions.
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)
Subcontract Management (timely award and management of subcontracts)
Cost Control (ability to forecast, manage, and control costs)
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 –
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (WHEN FILLED IN)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .