Attachment_5_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

M67854-18-R-2003

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 “UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” - when filled in

M67854-17-R-3016

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 “UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” - when filled in

Attachment 5

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

1. Past Performance Assessment. The Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC), Command Element Systems (CES), Marine Corps Base Quantico, is soliciting competitive offers from certified 8(a) small businesses to provide logistics support services to the Product Manager CES Albany, Georgia. MCSC seeks proposals from potential Offerors with the capability to provide logistics support services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in support of the 15 Program Management groups under CES.

To assist our source selection process, please complete this questionnaire and submit it via E-Mail to the Contract Specialist listed below. If more space is needed, please attach additional pages. Your response is needed no later than the closing time for receipt of offers, 1:00 pm, Eastern Time, 06 April 2018. Your responses will generally be protected as Source Selection Sensitive Information, but the Government reserves the right to discuss adverse information you provide with the Offeror as needed to obtain an accurate picture of their performance for you. The contractor soliciting your feedback to MCSC may complete only Section 2 of this form; the balance is to be completed solely by you, as the reporting customer.

If you have any questions, please contact the Contract Specialist via E-Mail.

Ms. Megan Brady, Contract Specialist E-Mail: megan.brady@usmc.mil Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) 2200 Lester St. Bldg. 2200 Quantico, VA 22134-6050

(Continued)

2. Customer Assessor and Contract Information.

Customer Assessor.

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Contract Information.

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Contractor:

Total Period of Performance (including available options/award terms):

Total Contract Value at Award (including available options/award terms):

Customer (agency, company, etc.) name, location and principal mission:

(Continued)

3. Contract Relevancy. To assist our comparison of the contract identified in Section 2 with the size, scope and complexity of the CES Albany acquisition, please complete the following:

(a) Annual contract dollars for the effort, on average, or by performance period (identify the performance period used): $__________________.

(b) Type(s) of Support: Place an X in each applicable box.

Acquisition and Contract Management Support Business and Financial Management Support Communications Support Equipment Fielding Support Logistics Management Support Manpower and Training Support Planning Support Production Management Support Program Management Support Technical Management Support Test and Evaluation Management Support Other Support (please describe: _________________________)

4. Performance Assessment Ratings. Please use these definitions when rating elements of performance in Section 5.

Exceptional. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements, to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

5. Assessment Elements. Please enter the appropriate performance assessment rating for each item below and provide supporting comments/narrative.

a. Mission Requirements. Please rate whether the contractor provided a product or service that met your mission requirements. Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Excellent Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Not Applicable

Comments:

b. Business Relations. Please rate how well the contractor integrated and coordinated all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness, quality of problem resolution, and corrective action plans, as well as the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, and whether it submitted accurate invoices in a timely manner. Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Marginal Unsatisfactory

Comments:

c. Quality. Please rate the contractor’s performance in providing a product or service that met your required level of quality. Assess the contractor’s conformance with respect to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards.). Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Marginal Unsatisfactory

Comments:

d. Schedule. Please rate how well the contractor delivered according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances? Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Marginal Unsatisfactory

Comments:

e. Management of Key Personnel. Please rate the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing—when necessary—key personnel. Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Marginal Unsatisfactory

Comments:

f. Subcontract Management. Please rate the contractor’s performance in meeting the goals of the subcontracting plan, and whether the contractor made timely awards and effectively managed subcontracts. Place an X in the applicable box and provide supporting/illustrating comments to assist in our evaluation process.

Marginal Unsatisfactory

Comments:

6. Recommendation. Would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts of similar size, scope and complexity?

Yes No

Comments:

7. Other References. As appropriate, please identify any other customer point of contact familiar with the Offeror’s performance of the assessed contract whom we may contact for additional inputs on the Offeror’s performance.

Name:

Organization:

Phone:

“UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” when filled in

“UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” when filled in