J 1(b) Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire RVLTD.pdf

RFP# 80ARC020R0011 Attachment J.1(b)(2)

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed.

CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER

______________________, 2020

Dear Client:

We are currently responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the NASA Ames Research Center for the Rotorcraft Vertical Lift Technology Development (RVLTD) procurement. This procurement is a follow-on requirement for rotary and vertical lift research at NASA Ames Research Center.

NASA Ames Research Center is continuing to place increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. As such, a requirement of its solicitation is that past clients of ours be identified and participate in the evaluation process.

We have identified __________________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on his/her knowledge concerning our work.

Please complete the enclosed Past Performance Questionnaire and forward it directly to NASA Contracting Officer Gary Shelley at the following email address: gary.a.shelley@nasa.gov.

A response to this questionnaire is requested to the above email address no later than August 11, 2020.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Any questions may be directed to the undersigned.

Sincerely, Enclosure

Summary of the RVLTD procurement The RVLTD Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires contractor performance in three (3) general technical areas:

(1) Advanced Rotorcraft Technologies (PWS Section II-1) Includes performance in the following areas: aeromechanics simulation model development;

simulation services to support wind tunnel, flight, and/or simulator testing; aeromechanics model design and validation; and integration of aeromechanics simulation models into distributed simulation environments.

(2) Flight Controls and Health Management (PWS Section II-2) Includes performance in the following areas: simulation scenario design and development;

government simulation demonstration and exercise coordination; independent industry project assessments; simulator system development and operation; and human-in-the-loop simulation studies for research and development, and test and evaluation.

(3) Rotorcraft Research Testing (PWS Section II-3) Includes performance in the following areas: aircraft performance and handling qualities evaluations and criteria development; flight control system design and/or evaluation; design of display symbology and control laws; and piloted simulation for evaluation of displays and/or handling qualities.

Please use the following adjectival ratings to respond to the questions on the following pages. Please select one rating per statement, using the following definitions and provide additional remarks to further explain any Excellent, Very Good and Poor rating, as well as in response to the more detailed questions.

Definition of Ratings

Excellent (E)

Consistent record of exceptional past performance by the offeror and any proposed major subcontractors on work identical or very similar to the work requirements of the proposed contract; indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.

Very Good (VG)

Consistent record of successful past performance by the offeror and any proposed major subcontractors on work identical or very similar to the work requirements of the proposed contract; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Good (G)

Successful past performance by the offeror and any proposed major subcontractors on work similar to the work requirements of the proposed contract; and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Neutral (N) Neutral score. Assigned to offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or not applicable.

Satisfactory (S)

Successful past performance by the offeror and any proposed major subcontractors on work similar to the work requirements of the proposed contract and may be limited in terms of the size, scope and complexity when compared to this contract; demonstrates meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.

Poor (P) The Offeror’s relevant past performance demonstrates performance that does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas, which adversely affect overall performance.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Contract Information

Offeror:

Contract Name:

Contract Number:

Agency/Company/ Organization Name:

Point of Contact Name:

Point of Contact Email:

Point of Contact Phone:

General Contract Information Please provide the following information about this contract and the Offeror’s role:

1. Provide a brief description of services provided by the Offeror under this contract.

2. Type of Contract

Firm Fixed Price ☐ Cost Plus Fixed Fee ☐

Cost Plus Award Fee ☐ Other (Describe): ____________________ ☐

3. Method of Competition

Non-Competitive ☐

Competitive (provide description—e.g., Full and Open, Small Business Set-Aside, etc.—below)

Follow-on? ☐

New requirement? ☐

4. Period of Performance (including options/ extensions):

From: To:

5. Contract Value (including all options): $________________________________

6. Briefly describe any change(s) from original contract value (including cost overruns):

7. Was there a cost overrun? ( ) Yes ( ) No

If yes, please explain (please address any overruns in direct and indirect costs, such as increases in overhead rates, and their impact on overall cost performance):

8. What are the total contract expenditures to date (cost/fees to date based on invoices, reports, etc.)?

The chart below will help determine the relevancy of the contract to this requirement. Please complete the following chart by inserting the number of Work Year Equivalent (WYE) personnel assigned in each topic area and total WYE personnel on the contract for the prime contractor and/or Major Subcontractors.

If the Offeror was the Prime Contractor on the contract, please complete additional rows for the Major Subcontractors (>$3 million). If the Offeror was a subcontractor on the contract, please complete only one row under Major Subcontractors for the Offeror.

Company Name

(a) Advanced Rotorcraft Technologies (PWS Section

II-1)

(b) Flight Controls and Health Management

(PWS

Section II-2)

(c) Rotorcraft Research Testing

(PWS

Section II- 3)

Total WYE on Contract

Prime Contractor:

Major Subcontractor:

OFFEROR’S PERFORMANCE

Please rate the Offeror’s performance under this contract for the specific services, functions, or issues listed below.

Please ensure that the rating is consistent with the Definition of Ratings provided.

RELEVANT TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE RATING

(Please circle)

Overall technical performance over the life of the contract, meeting task requirements in a timely manner.

E VG G N S P

Please provide an explanation for any Excellent or Poor ratings above. Also include any other comments relevant to the Offeror’s performance on this contract.

Please describe one relevant technical process or one specific example relating to this PWS, of the independent accomplishment of the Offeror that was recognized as significant by your organization.

Provide at least one specific example for each area of experience in vertical lift computer modeling, analysis, design and development, system engineering, and project management, as it relates to this PWS.

Please describe a best practice or a lesson learned that the Offeror integrated into operations across your contract.

Please describe the Offeror’s innovativeness through the use of new methods or technologies that provided a significant benefit to this contract.

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE RATING

(Please circle)

Management of multiple, concurrent, and complex tasks, including management and negotiation of task orders and any modifications.

E VG G N S P

Methods for monitoring subcontract performance and ensuring flow-down of requirements to subcontractor. Effectiveness of subcontracting approach as it relates to meeting subcontract goals, if applicable.

E VG G N S P

Recruitment and retention of employees with the appropriate skills and expertise for task order performance.

E VG G N S P

Quality of cost estimating and performance monitoring processes used to track and report to the government.

E VG G N S P

Please provide an explanation for any Excellent or Poor ratings above. Also include any other comments relevant to the Offeror’s performance on this contract.

If the contract involved task orders, then provide the average number of concurrent task orders per year.

Describe any serious performance problems, termination for default, or regulatory violations resulting from Offeror performance. Include contracts that were de-scoped by the customer because of performance or cost problems.

Submitted By (Signature) Date

Agency/Company

Telephone Number: ______________________

Email Address: