Exhibit_1_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

M67854-18-R-2023

M67854-18-R-2023

Exhibit (1)

Past Performance Questionnaire

1. Past Performance Assessment. The Marine Corps Handheld (MCH) system will exhibit a modular, man-portable equipment suite that allows the warfighter to quickly acquire targets in day, night, and near all-weather visibility conditions; and control close air support (CAS) as well as artillery and Naval surface fire support missions. The MCH system will further serve as a digital information processing and display system that provides integrated, on-the-move secure, timely, and relevant Command and Control/Situational Awareness (C2/SA) information to tactical combat, combat support and combat service support commanders, leaders, and key C2 nodes using digital communications. The initial MCH system increment will be interoperable with the Joint Battle Command Platform (JBC-P) Family of Systems, the Joint Tactical COP Workstation, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), The Target Handoff System (THS), and various other USMC MAGTF C2 and Close Air Support (CAS) platforms.

To assist Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) in its source selection process, please complete this questionnaire and provide via E-Mail to the Contract Specialist with a copy to the Contracting Officer 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, 10:00AM. 1:00 PM Eastern Time, April 9, 2018 March 28, 2018. Your responses will be protected as Source Selection Sensitive Information.

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

Ms. Jodie Shifflett, Contracting Officer (C2S) E-Mail: Jodie.Shifflett@usmc.mil

Mr. Tommy King, Contract Specialist E-Mail: tommy.king@usmc.mil

(Continued)

2. Government Assessor and Contract Information.

Government Assessor.

Name:

Title:

Organization and Location:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Contract Information.

Contractor Name:

Prime Contractor or Subcontractor?

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Total Period of Performance:

(include available options/award terms)

Total Contract Value at Award:

(include available options/award terms)

Title of Contract Effort:

3. Contract Relevancy. To assist our comparison of the contract identified in Section 2 with the size and scope of the PM C2S MCH acquisition, please complete the following:

(Continued)

(a) Annual contract dollars for the current or most recent performance period: $__________________.

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

Excellent. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements, to the Government’s benefit. Contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory. Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal. Performance barely meets contractual requirements. Contractual performance of the element being assessed 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 some or most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable. Unable to provide a score. This element is not applicable to the effort being assessed.

5. Assessment Elements. Please check the appropriate performance assessment rating for each question below and provide supporting comments/narrative:

A. The contractor’s ability to provide a product, service, documents, and related deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship.

Excellent (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Satisfactory Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Not Applicable

Comments:

B. Timely recognition and notification of administrative, engineering, production problems affecting the program.

Excellent (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Satisfactory Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Identification of risk areas and addressing problems with solutions

Satisfactory Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

D. Contractors ability to deliver according to the agreed-to schedule. What were the causes of any schedule variances?

Satisfactory Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

E. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

Satisfactory Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below) Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. Would you recommend this contractor for additional contracts of similar scope and size?

Yes No