Attachment_7 _Past_Perf_Questionnaire.pdf

UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE IL 62225-5357

12 October 2016

FROM: USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

508 Scott Dr.

Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357

SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for Solicitation HTC711-17-R-CC01, Next Generation Delivery Service

(NGDS)

The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) is in the process of evaluating proposals for award of the NGDS contract. The services to be performed under this contract include international and domestic small package delivery services for the United States Federal Government, cost reimbursable contractors, and all activities eligible to use General Service Administration sources of supply and services. For both service 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), and customs clearance processing of small package shipments. The contractor will provide international commercial express small package delivery service for shipments up to and including 300 lbs and domestic express and ground small package delivery service inclusive of next-day and second day delivery for shipments up to and including 150 lbs within the Continental United States (CONUS) and for shipments up to and including 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 an offeror’s past and present performance on similar contracts which reflect the offeror’s ability to perform the services required. We depend on information received from relevant sources that have first-hand experience with an offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts. As you have been identified as a relevant source by an offeror being considered for contract award, we request that you complete the attached questionnaire to assist us in completing our analysis of the offeror’s past performance.

Our areas of interest in the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. Request submission of your completed written response no later than 3:00 p.m. CST on 9 November 2016.

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be typed or handwritten and either scanned or emailed to cheryl.l.berkemann.civ@mail.mil and nicole.d.swoboda.civ@mail.mil. Please call either Cheryl or Nicole at 618-220-7128 or 7105, respectively, if you have any questions. Please note that your completed questionnaire will become a part of the NGDS contract file.

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

////SIGNED////

CHERYL L. BERKEMANN

Contracting Officer

Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire

DRAFT

Solicitation HTC711-17-R-CC01 Attachment 7

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Past Performance Questionnaire Next Generation Delivery Service (NGDS)

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.

USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

ATTN: Ms. Cheryl Berkemann 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 E-mail: cheryl.l.berkemann.civ@mail.mil Phone: 618-220-7128; DSN 770-7128

USTRANSCOM TCAQ-CI

ATTN: Ms. Nicole Swoboda 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 E-mail: nicole.d.swoboda.civ@mail.mil Phone: 618-220-7105; DSN 770-7105

Please submit completed response NLT 3:00 p.m. CST on 9 November 2016

I. WORK PERFORMED (To be completed by the offeror being considered for award)

Contractor Name (Company/Division):

Contract Number/Type (Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc):

Title of Program/Project/Work Performed:

Brief Description of Work Performed:

Dollar value (include yearly dollar value of work performed and the total contract/effort dollar value):

Period of Performance (award date/completion date) of the contract/effort:

Solicitation HTC711-14-R-C001

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Sensitive When Filled In

II. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT’S INFORMATION

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________

Position/Title: ________________________________________________________________________________

Business Address: _____________________________________________________________________________

Relation to Program: ___________________________________________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________________________________________________

FAX: ______________________________________

Other suggested points of contact: _______________________________________________________________

Give a brief, general description of the services the contractor was required to perform/deliver. Please note that if your responses indicate 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 provided the respondent’s name:

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:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

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

____ International ____ Domestic ____ Both

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

Next-Day______ Second-Day______ Ground______ Other______

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

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______

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

7. For International services (if applicable), what average volume (number of shipments) 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 +

8. For Domestic services (if applicable), what average volume (number of shipments) 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 +

9. How often did the carrier meet the required delivery dates/transit times?

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

10. 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______

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

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

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

Yes _____ No _______

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

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Unknown ______

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

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Unknown ______

15. The Contractor met small business subcontracting goals as established in the contract, if applicable.

Yes _____ No _______ Unknown ______

16. Contractor’s Overall performance:

Exceptional______ Very Good______ Satisfactory______ Marginal______ Unsatisfactory______

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

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

Yes ___________ No____________

If “No”, why?:

18. Any additional comments the evaluator(s) should consider?

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.