K. EXHIBIT 13 EED3 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

RFP 80GSFC20R0026

Exhibit 13

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

(Updated May, 2018)

Sections 1-3 provide for contract-related descriptive information and identification of the evaluator.

Section 4 lists the major work elements within our requirement. Please provide your assessment of the “relevant experience” and “performance” associated with our requirement evidenced within the contract for which you are a reference. “Experience” means a contractor who has performed work in the specific requirement element. “Did not Perform” means that the specific requirement element was not performed under the contract.

Section 5 evaluates the contractor’s technical, schedule, and cost performance and management. (Additional pages may be used for comments if desired). If you cannot answer any questions, please circle “N/R” for Not Rated.

The following definitions are offered for your use in assigning a performance rating for each of the factors in Sections 5 and 6:

Section 6 provides for evaluation of the contractor’s management of cost and award/incentive fee history.

RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO NASA Goddard Space Flight Center BY TBD Attn: Malika Graham Code 210.6 Greenbelt, MD 20771 Phone: (301) 286-0855 e-mail: malika.graham@nasa.gov

Very High

(VH)

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit;

indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.

High

(H)

The Offeror’s relevant past performance demonstrates 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.

Moderate

(M)

The Offeror’s relevant past performance demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Low

(L)

The Offeror’s relevant past performance meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.

Very Low

(VL)

The Offeror’s relevant past performance 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.

N/R Not Rated

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Contract Information

A. Name of Company/Division Being Evaluated:_____________________

B. Address:_____________________________________________

C. Contractor Cage Code and/or DUNS number

D. Contract Number:_______________________________________

E. Contract Type:_________________________________________

F. Period of Performance (including options): From:______ To:_______

G. Total Contract Value:_____________________________________

H. Award Information: Competitive: Yes___ No___ Basis of Selection: Technical___ Cost/Price___ Other (specify)_________________________

2. Description of Contract

The purpose of this acquisition is to acquire services for the continued improvement, reliability, availability, functionality, operability, and performance of hardware and software systems within the EOSDIS for the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project.

The contractor shall provide for the development and sustaining of software and hardware systems that provide science data management for the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project within NASA’s Science Missions Directorate Earth Science Program.

A major activity under this contract will be for evolution and development engineering of several on-premise and commercial cloud-based systems. The EED-3 contractor is required to coordinate and integrate task related activities with the ESDIS Project, the Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), other Earth science data centers, the science investigator teams, the user community, as well as other Earth Observing Systems contractors. The contractor’s overall goal shall be to continuously improve the reliability, availability, functionality, operability, and performance of hardware and software systems within the EOSDIS while reducing operational and maintenance costs.

The period of performance will be 5 years and 90-days (to include a 90-day Phase-in period).

During the contract performance being evaluated, this firm was the:

Prime Contractor____ Significant Subcontractor ____ Team Member ____ Other (describe)____________________________________________

Does a corporate or business relationship exist between the firm being evaluated and your organization?

Yes ___ No ___. If yes, please describe: ___________________________

3. Evaluator Information

Name: _____________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________ Agency/Company: ____________________________________________ E-mail Address: _______________________________________________ Phone: ______________ Date Questionnaire Completed: _____________ Role in Program/Contract: ______________________________________ Length of Involvement in this Program/ Contract: _____________________

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 4

4. Requirements Survey Relevance Ratings: Please check the appropriate blocks for Relevance (Performed or Did Not Perform)

REQUIREMENT ELEMENT

PERFORMED

DID NOT

PERFORM

Science and Remote Sensing Data Processing

Science Data System Architecture & Design

Science Data Metadata Architecture and Metadata System Design & Development

Commercial Cloud-Native Applications Development and Data Processing

Commercial Cloud Operations Cost Modeling

Hybrid Commercial Cloud/On-premise Systems and Applications Operations

Commercial Cloud Systems and Applications Operations

Agile Development Fundamentals

Scalable Agile Development Fundamentals

Subcontract Management and Control System, providing technical direction and effective sub-contract management utilizing schedule milestone controls

Program Management

Development Engineering, design, development, test and implementation activities including, but not limited to hardware requirements analysis, software requirements analysis, test plan development, test activity planning and coordination, design, and interface definition

Maintenance Engineering, hardware and software engineering maintenance, and activities including, but not limited to, replacing, removing and/or upgrading software, hardware; design;

implementation; modification; configuration management; computer resource; training; integration;

installation; help desk; and testing

System Engineering, including, but not be limited to, analyses; trade studies; recommending enhancements for cost saving and/or cost avoidance; capacity growth; performance, reliability, maintainability and/or operational improvements; technology refresh; design improvements; and process improvement

Science Support, support to the Earth science community, including but not be limited to training in the use of the Earth science data systems and their capabilities, including instruction on data models, development and maintenance of interfaces and related documentation, identification of system modifications required to support science community needs, and training in the analysis of problems

Operations Support, including, but are not limited to, on-site system operations, system administration, and maintenance; training on the use of tools and procedures, development of procedures, on-site engineering support, on-site metric collection related to performance, problem

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 5 diagnoses and solution development, system administration and security planning, system tuning, patch and release planning and coordination, and system testing

Studies and Prototyping, including, but not limited to, technology studies evaluating performance, cost, and functionality; technology prototypes and demonstrations, assessments of internal and external stakeholder needs; assessments of users, user needs, and experience

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 6

5. General Performance Survey

NO PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

PERFORMANCE RATING

(Please Circle)

QUALITY

1. Quality of services and support provided VH H M L VL N/R

2. Timely identification and mitigation of risks VH H M L VL N/R

3.

Ability to identify and correct performance deficiencies in a timely manner

VH H M L VL N/R

4.

Demonstrated understanding and compliance with mission safety requirements

VH H M L VL N/R

Comment:

SCHEDULE

5.

Timeliness, quality, and accuracy of schedule estimates and reporting

6. Ability to meet/exceed schedule milestones VH H M L VL N/R

COST

7.

Ability to establish realistic cost estimates and adhere to estimated costs

VH H M L VL N/R

8.

Ability to anticipate, identify and control cost growth.

BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT

9.

Communicating/interfacing with Government and overall responsiveness to Government requests

VH H M L VL N/R

10.

Ability to effectively manage the contract including subcontractor performance, if applicable

VH H M L VL N/R

11.

Ability to recruit and retain highly skilled personnel, including ability to fill key vacancies in a timely manner.

VH H M L VL N/R

12.

Adequacy of Contractor’s system(s) for processing task orders and/or changes.

VH H M L VL N/R

13.

Ability to meet Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 7

Section 6:

What is the Contract Value:

Initial Value Current Value Estimated Cost: $___________ $____________

Fee: $___________ $____________

Total Value: $___________ $_____________

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

What is the Annual Contract Value to Date (The current contract expenditures to date divided by the number of years of performance to date)?

For example (note, these example numbers may not relate to this specific procurement):

Assume your contract is a current five year contract, is still ongoing, and the latest cost report reflects a cost/fee of $43,500,000 through the first 2 years and 4 months (to date). In this example, current/total Contract Expenditures incurred to Date are $43,500,000 and associated period of performance for those expenditures, expressed in years, is 2.33 years.

Therefore, the Average Annual Cost/Fee Incurred to Date: $18,669,528 ($43,500,000/2.33 years)

Was there a cost overrun? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain:

If this was an award fee contract, what are the individual and/or average ratings of performance by your organization? Please attach any available award fee letters or database entries.

Please comment on particularly strong/weak points of Contractor’s performance (technical, schedule, and/or cost). If the Overall Contract Performance Rating below is less than Very High, please provide some explanation in this section on why a higher rating was not provided.

Overall Contract Performance Rating (circle one)

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

If less than Very High Performance Rating, please explain:

This form contains Source Selection Information when completed. See FAR 3.104. 8

Please add any other comments you may feel are pertinent.

Rater’s Signature Date