Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionaire_Rvd.pdf

HTC71122RD002_Attachment 5

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

CUI

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

HTC71122RD002

Managed Information Technology Services (MITS) Enterprise Support

NOTE: CPARS may be reviewed for the contractors in addition to the 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. Complete the following questionnaire and return via email no later than 0900(CT), 02 May2022 to:

EMAIL SUBJECT: HTC71122RD0002 – Past Performance Questionnaire, (Contractor’s Name)

ATTENTION: Laura Ades, Contract Specialist laura.m.ades.civ@mail.mil

JaneAnne Holten, Contracting Officer janeanne.m.holten.civ@mail.mil

I. PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE

Government Agency:

PPQ Reference/Completed By: ___________________________________________________________

Relation to PPQ Reference: (e.g., Program Manager):

Contact Information (Phone/Email):

II. WORK PERFORMED IDENTIFICATION

Contractor (Company/Division):

Contract Number:

Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Value (including options):

Period of Performance:

Contract Type (FFP, CPFF, etc.):

Brief Description of the Contract Effort and required Tasks:

Use of Subcontractors (approximate percentage) tcadeslm Highlight

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

CUI

III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Please identify the appropriate rating for each of the following questions as it relates to the contractor’s performance for the contract reference, as applicable. The ratings and their associated definitions are located at the end of this document. At the end of the questionnaire, there is a comments section to add any information pertinent to the contractor’s performance record.

Staffing and Quality of Service Poor Fair Good Excellent

(1) Appropriate skills and expertise provided □ □ □ □

(2) Technical excellence □ □ □ □

(3) Minimum vacancies/replacement of personnel □ □ □ □

(4) Compliance with DoD Instruction or Policy □ □ □ □

(5) Initiative to Seek Process Improvement □ □ □ □

Cost Control Poor Fair Good Excellent

(1) Effective cost control □ □ □ □

(2) Timely notification of cost limitations □ □ □ □

(3) Cost efficiencies □ □ □ □

Contract Performance/Management Poor Fair Good Excellent

(1) Reliability □ □ □ □

(2) Responsiveness to Technical Direction □ □ □ □

(3) Implementation of Technical Approach □ □ □ □

(4) Accuracy of Deliverables □ □ □ □

(5) Effective Management □ □ □ □

Technical Performance

(1) Experience providing Infrastructure-as-a-Service in a GovCloud approved environment at the IL 4 and 5 level. Substantial Moderate Limited

(2) Experience in managing and maintaining an enterprise Test and Integration Lab (TIL).

Substantial Moderate Limited

(3) Experience in providing IT Service Management support in accordance with ITIL Service Management Framework, while managing enterprise services).

Substantial Moderate Limited

Would you award to this contractor in the future? If not, please explain further.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

CUI

Additional Comments

Digital Signature (if possible): _______________________________________ Please note that your responses may be subject to disclosure to the contractor; however, the contractor will not be made aware of the respondent’s name or office.

Rating Definition

Poor Significant problems have occurred; (For example: difficulty managing costs, delivering, and/or performing contract/technical requirements).

Fair Some problems have occurred; (For example: some issues managing costs, delivering, and/or performing contract/technical requirements).

Good Minor problems have occurred; (For example: minimal issue in managing costs, delivering, and/or performing contract/technical requirements).

Excellent No problems/issues have occurred; (For example: Effectively managing costs, delivering, and/or performing contract/technical requirements). Has provided added benefit in some way above and beyond contract requirements.

Rating Definition Limited Work effort is not related to the performance areas identified above.

Moderate Work effort is somewhat related to the performance areas identified above and the contractor has some experience as a result of performance under this effort.

Substantial Work effort is similarly related to the performance areas identified above and the contractor has ample experience as a result of performance under this effort.