Attachment 1(Past Performance Questionnaires) rev 1.docx

HTC711-09-R-0036

Attachment 1

JOINT FLOW AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM FOR TRANSPORTATION (JFAST)

HTC711-09-R-0036

Past Performance Questionnaire

Please provide concise comments regarding your overall assessment of the offeror’s performance on the contract or workload identified below. Your ratings should include comments for any question rated higher or lower than Satisfactory. Rating definitions can be found at the end of the document. Please respond by sending the entire completed questionnaire, including these instructions, via fax or e-mail (preferred) to the address below.

Scott AFB IL 62225-5357 Fax: 618-256-8316 E-mail: dominic.curcuru@ustranscom.mil Phone: 618-229-2513

Request response NLT 12:00 noon (CDT) on 7 August 2009

NOTE: PPIRS may be reviewed for the offerors as well as responses to this questionnaire. Although you may have filed a CPARS for the contract listed, we would appreciate your response to this questionnaire because some of the questions relate to areas not covered by CPARS.

I. WORK PERFORMED IDENTIFICATION

Contractor (Company/Division):

Contract Number/Type (FFP, CPFF, etc):

Title of Work Performed:

Brief Description of Work Performed:

Dollar value:

Period of Performance:

II. RESPONDENT(S) TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ______________________________________________________________________ Business Address: ___________________________________________________________________ Relation to Program: _________________________________________________________________ Phone: (DSN)__________________________(Commercial)__________________________________ FAX: (DSN) __________________________(Commercial) __________________________________

Other suggested points of contact:

Give a brief, general description of what the contractor was required to provide/deliver. Please note that if your response indicates a weakness in the contractor’s performance, a notification may be submitted to the contractor, and they may be made aware of the comment. The contractor will not be made aware of the commenter’s name or office.

REMARKS: ___________________________________________________________________________

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

NOTE: Remarks may be continued on separate pages. Please identify category and question number.

1. Please rate the contractor’s experience with software development projects that support strategic (international/national) and theater (regional) deployment, sustainment, and training for multi-modal transportation feasibility models.

Exceptional______Very Good______Satisfactory______Marginal______Unsatisfactory______Neutral______

REMARKS:

2. Please rate the contractor’s experience with software development that supports modeling of fuel requirements used by air and/or sea fleets.

REMARKS:

3. Please rate the contractor’s experience with software development that supports forecasting of transportation requirements, course-of-action analysis, crisis action planning, and conducting “what-if” scenarios in support of end-to-end distribution or mobility modeling.

REMARKS:

4. Please rate the contractor’s experience with discrete event modeling (i.e specific events within an end-to-end or mobility process).

REMARKS:

5. Please rate the contractor’s experience with software development of transportation models that support the exercise of training objectives and simulation of data feeds to operational command and control systems.

REMARKS:

6. How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance?

REMARKS:

7. Would you award to this contractor in the future? Yes ___________ No____________ If “no”, why? _____________________________________________________________________________

RATING DEFINITIONS:

(1) Unsatisfactory – Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

(2) Marginal – Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.

(3) Satisfactory – Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

(4) Very Good – Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the customer’s benefit. There were a few minor problems which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner.

(5) Exceptional – Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the customer’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner.

(6) Neutral – No record of performance or the record is inconclusive.