Attachment_4 _Past_Perf_Questionnaire _TDS.docx

3 April 2014

FROM: USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

SUBJECT: Past Performance Survey for Solicitation HTC711-14-R-C001

The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), Commercial International Branch is in the process of evaluating offers for award of the Total Delivery Services (TDS) contract. This procurement is a consolidation effort of the current WorldWide Express (WWX) and Domestic Express (DOMEX) programs. Under TDS, the contractor will provide international and domestic commercial express package service for the United States (US) Government. For both segments (international and domestic), the scope of work requires the contractor to provide time-definite, door-to-door pick-up and delivery, transportation, timely and accurate Intransit Visibility (ITV), Government Third Party Payment System (GTTPS) participation, and customs clearance processing. Specific to international transportation services, the contractor shall provide international commercial express package delivery service for the Department of Defense (DoD), civilian federal agencies, and cost-reimbursable contractors for shipments up to and including 300 lbs. For domestic transportation services, the contractor shall provide domestic express delivery service inclusive of next-day and second day delivery for the DoD and cost-reimbursable contractors for delivery of packages up to 150 lbs within CONUS and for delivery of packages up to 300 lbs between CONUS and Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, and within Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

One of the significant considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offeror’s past and present performance on contracts which reflect the offeror’s ability to perform on the proposed effort. We depend on information received from sources such as yours, which have had first-hand experience with an offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts. If information on this particular contractor has been entered into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), please annotate that in the appropriate block within Section 2 of the attached questionnaire. We will use this information, as well as the specific information obtained from this questionnaire, to complete our analysis of the offeror’s past performance.

Our areas of interest in the offeror are summarized in the enclosed survey. Request your written response no later than 3:00 p.m. CDT on 22 April 2014. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of evaluations.

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the survey may be typed or handwritten and either scanned and emailed to Lynda.y.lang.civ@mail.mil and Nashae.j.perez.civ@mail.mil, or “faxed” to 618-220-7909 (DSN 770-7909), Attention: Lynda Lang & Nashae Perez. Please call Lynda Lang (618-220-7092) or Nashae Perez (618-220-7058) prior to transmission or if you have any questions. Your completed survey will become a part of the official records.

Your help is greatly appreciated and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this award.

UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE IL 62225-5357

ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire Past Performance Questionnaire Total Delivery Services (TDS)

Please provide concise comments regarding your overall assessment of the contractor’s performance on the contract identified below. Your ratings (i.e., Exceptional, Very Good, etc.) should include comments for any question rated higher or lower than Satisfactory. Please respond by sending the entire completed questionnaire, including these instructions, via e-mail to the addresses below.

Solicitation HTC711-14-R-C001 Attachment 4 Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Sensitive When Filled In

Solicitation HTC711-14-R-C001 Attachment 4 Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Sensitive When Filled In

USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

ATTN: Ms. Lynda Lang 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 E-mail: Lynda.y.lang.civ@mail.mil Phone: 618-220-7092; DSN 770-7092

FAX: 618-220-7909

USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

ATTN: Ms. Nashae Perez 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 E-mail: Nashae.j.perez.civ@mail.mil Phone: 618-220-7058; DSN 770-7058

FAX: 618-220-7909

Request response NLT 3:00 p.m. CDT on 22 April 2014.

NOTE: PPIRS may be reviewed for the contractors 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):

Work Performed Title:

Brief Description of Work Performed:

Dollar value (include per year cost and life cycle cost):

Period of Performance:

II. RESPONDENT(S) TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ________________________________________________________________________________ Business Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Relation to Program: ____________________________________________________________________________ Phone: _______________________________________________________________________________________ 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.

DESCRIPTION: _____________________________________________________________________________

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

NOTE 1: Remarks may be continued on separate pages. Please identify category and question number.

NOTE 2: Rating definitions are provided at the end of this questionnaire.

1. Describe the scope and complexity of cargo shipped (e.g., Letters, Documents, Small Packages, Large Freight, Multiple Door-to-Door pick-up/deliveries, Airport-to-Airport, HAZMAT, Refrigerated, or Oversized):

REMARKS:

2. Are the location of shipments under this contract considered international and/or domestic (i.e. within CONUS and between CONUS and Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, and within Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico)?

____ International ____ Domestic ____ Both

REMARKS:

3. If applicable, did the domestic transportation performed by the contractor include the following delivery services (check all that apply):

Next-Day______ Second-Day______ Other______

REMARKS:

4. If applicable, what approximate percentage of United States ZIP Codes coverage did the contractor provide domestic services under your contract:

Less than 20%______ 20-50%______ 51-70%______ 71-94%______ More than 94%______

5. If this contractor has performed international transportation services under your contract, what geographical locations has the carrier delivered packages (check all that apply)?

____ Europe ____ Asia ____ Middle East

____ Africa ____ Afghanistan ____ Intra Afghanistan ____ Other

REMARKS:

6. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in transportation of international and/or domestic small packages weighing in range from Letter to 300 lbs?

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

REMARKS:

7. What average volume (pounds) did the carrier deliver per month under this contract?

____ 1 – 1,000 ____ 1,001 – 10,000 ____ 10,001 – 100,000 ____ 100,001 – 500,000

____ 500,001 – 1,000,000 ____ 1,000,001 – 1,500,000 ____ 1,500,001 – 2,000,000 ____ 2,000,001 +

REMARKS:

8. How often did the carrier meet their transit time?

____ Less than 50% ____ 51 – 75% ____ 76 – 90% ____ 91 – 95% ____ More than 96%

REMARKS:

9. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in providing prompt notifications and corrective measures for lost, damaged or astray air cargo shipments?

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

REMARKS:

10. How would you rate the contractor’s knowledge and experience in providing complete and accurate In-transit visibility?

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

REMARKS:

11. Were there any penalties for non-performance assessed against the contractor and if so, to what extent?

Yes _____ No _______

REMARKS:

12. How would you rate compliance with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns?

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Unknown ______

REMARKS:

13. How would you rate compliance with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Unknown ______

REMARKS:

14. The Contractor met small business subcontracting goals as established in the contract.

Yes _____ No _______ Unknown ______

REMARKS:

15. Contractor’s Overall performance:

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

REMARKS:

16. Would you award to this contractor in the future?

Yes ___________ No____________

If “No”, why?:

17. Any additional comments:

REMARKS:

Rating Definitions:

Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory - 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 - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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 - 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.

image1.wmf