Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

QUESTIONNAIRE: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

CONTRACT: SECURITY SERVICES

In support of a Source Selection being conducted by The Kennedy Center, please complete the following questionnaire to the best of your knowledge and RESPOND BY FAX TO (202) 416-8975 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT. If you feel someone else in your organization would have greater cognizance for some or all of the questions, please have that individual respond to those questions. Names of individuals providing reference information shall not be revealed in accordance with FAR 15.306(e)(4). You are also requested to sign and date the form upon completion. Please call Darnese Wilkerson at (202) 416- 7993 if you have any questions. Your participation will be invaluable and is appreciated.

Part 1: Customer/Agency Information

Customer/agency name

Customer/agency POC (CO, COTR, or designated customer/agency representative preferred)

Customer/agency phone number

Customer/agency fax number

Customer/agency description

Geographic location of services provided, address and whether local, nationwide, or other

Evaluator’s name

Evaluator’s title

Evaluator’s organization

Evaluator’s phone number

Time period evaluator worked on subject contract (beginning and end dates)

Part 2: Contract Information

Contractor name

Was this a competitive contract (Y/N)?

Period of performance

Initial annual dollar value

Current/final annual dollar value

Description of services provided

Part 3: Evaluation

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

Exceptional (E): The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many of those requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (V): The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some of those requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (S): The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal (M): Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear to be only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (U): Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Neutral (N): Unable to provide a score; not a requirement of the contract.

Please provide additional comments on your ratings for each question in the “Comments” space provided. Any and all detail is greatly appreciated and is crucial to our successful evaluation.

Subfactor 1: Project Management

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in demonstrating a sound, rational, effective, and efficient approach to accomplish the contractual requirements.

Rate Offeror’s initial startup. Were 100% of all requirements met on the required startup schedule?

Rate Offeror’s ability to meet posting requirements. Were all posts manned as required by the contract?

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in utilization of their quality control plan.

Rate Offeror’s identification and notification of deficiencies.

Rate Offeror’s follow-up process to ensure non-recurrence of deficiencies.

Rate Offeror’s resolution of contract problems. Was this done in a timely manner?

Rate Offeror’s structure/organization for managing the contract. Was management effectively organized to facilitate operations in the field?

Rate Offeror’s management, cooperation, and interaction with the Government or customer.

Rate the Project Manager’s performance. How well qualified was the PM? How knowledgeable was of the PM of contract requirements? Was the PM an active and integral part of contract management and communication between contractor and customer? Was the PM an efficient problem solver?

Rate Offeror’s requests for modifications. Did the contractor request an excessive number of modifications?

Rate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s methods for controlling government furnished property. Was that property accounted for and inventoried effectively?

Rate Offeror’s ability to meet customer requirements. Did the contractor demonstrate a responsive customer service system or process?

Rate Offeror’s ability to be proactive in identifying and resolving problems.

Rate Offeror’s flexibility to changes/fluctuations in workload requirements.

Rate Offeror’s ability to identify and implement quality improvement processes.

Rate Offeror’s ability to display innovation in meeting requirements.

Rate Offeror’s ability to adhere to schedules.

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in demonstrating cost control.

Rate Offeror’s overall performance in program management.

Comments:

Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in demonstrating a sound, effective approach to capture and retain expertise.

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in demonstrating a sound, effective approach to organizing, staffing, leading, planning, coordinating, and controlling resources to meet the requirements of the contract for successful execution.

Rate Offeror’s ability to staff the appropriate level of personnel resources across the range of skills necessary to accomplish the contract requirements.

Rate Offeror’s ability to control the turnover of employees.

Rate Offeror’s ability to effectively provide quality replacements. Were replacements properly qualified, trained, and in place according to contract requirements? Was contract performance affected?

Rate Offeror’s effectiveness in demonstrating a contingency plan with a comprehensive response in the event of an increased manning requirement or emergency situation.

Rate Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a strike plan with a comprehensive approach for continuing contract performance in the event of a labor strike.

Rate Offeror’s ability to attain labor efficiency in negotiating with organized labor.

Rate Offeror’s ability to implement any techniques or proactive initiatives to gain labor efficiencies.

Rate Offeror’s ability to establish labor relations with management personnel.

Rate Offeror’s overall performance on management of personnel.

Comments:

Additional Questions

1. Given the opportunity, would you hire this contractor again?

Please circle one: Definitely Most Likely Might Might Not Definitely Not

Explain:

2. Please provide the total number of personnel on contract:

Total Personnel: ___

Armed Security Personnel: ___

Unarmed Security Personnel: ___

Emergency Medical Technician Personnel (EMT/BASIC): ___

3. Please list the types of licenses/certifications required/obtained for contract performance (ex: District of Columbia Security Officer Management Branch (SOMB), District of Columbia Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Administration (HEPRA):

Licenses/certifications:

4. Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired:

5. Did the contractor have an in-service training capability to certify their personnel?

Yes__ No__ Subcontracted Training__

6. Government contracts only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes__ No__ Default__ Convenience__ Pending Terminations__

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc.):

Evaluator’s Signature: ____________________________ Date: ________