Att_L2_PPQ.docx

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please return the completed questionnaire within 2 weeks from receipt to Ms. Tiffany Corbett, Contract Specialist, at tiffany.l.corbett.civ@us.navy.mil, Ms. Catherine Rippeon, Contract Specialist, at catherine.v.rippeon.civ@us.navy.mil, and to Ms. Rhonda Garcia, Contracting Officer, at rhonda.g.garcia2.civ@us.navy.mil.

1. CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION

a. Contractor:

b. Program Title:

c. Contract Number:

d. Type of Contract: Percent Complete:

e. Period of Performance being assessed:

Note: Whether identified or not, if you have any knowledge of other contracts for the identified contractor, you are requested to complete a questionnaire for each contract or subcontract similar to this acquisition.

2. RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION

a. Name:

b. Agency:

c. Position:

d. Relation to Program:

e. Phone:

g. Email Address:

f. Date Questionnaire Completed:

3. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

3a. Please provide a short description of the subject contract.

3b. Please check those activities, which are applicable to your program and please provide a short description of the type of work the Contractor performed support in the applicable areas:

☐ Systems Engineering Research and Development ☐ Concept Definition ☐ Operational Concepts Analysis ☐ Mission Scenario/Time Line Analysis

☐ Functional and Design Requirements Research and Analysis ☐ Requirements Analysis and Management ☐ Air Platform Technology ☐ Development and review of specifications ☐ Development of the project and program cost estimate ☐ Development of documentation for the acquisition milestone and briefing material ☐ Risk Management ☐ Interface Management ☐ IPTs, working groups, tiger teams, or any other group/team assembled to evaluate and/or solve technical issues ☐ Earned Value Management ☐ Flight Clearance/FAA Certification Process ☐ Technical Review Process ☐ Program reviews, OSD Program Support Reviews, Navy Gate Reviews and other reviews ☐ Program Planning/Future Planning ☐ Analysis of Engineering Change Proposals ☐ Engineering Investigations ☐ Configuration Management ☐ Aircraft Systems and Subsystems Integration ☐ Mission Planning Requirements Analysis ☐ Simulation Facility Studies and Analysis ☐ T&E Support – Requirements, Plans, and Procedures ☐ Non-Cooperative Target Identification (NCTI), Multi-Sensor Integration ☐ Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Support ☐ Technology Transfer Program Support ☐ Network Centric Warfare ☐ Mission Planning System Design, Integration and Evaluation

4. PERFORMANCE LEVELS

4.1 PERFORMANCE GRADES

Use the following grades to provide the rating where requested in Section 4.2:

Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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. Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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. Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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. Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

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. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective, or were not fully implemented. Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

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. Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

4.2 QUESTIONS

4.2.1. QUALITY

a. What kind of strengths or weaknesses occurred during the contractor’s performance in transforming operational need and requirements into an integrated system design solution, considering: the planning and control of technical program tasks, the quality and adequacy of the engineering support provided throughout all phases of contract/order execution, the integration of the engineering specialties, management of interfaces, and interoperability? Describe any positive performance or problems that the contractor encountered in providing quality performance.

b. What kind of strengths or weaknesses occurred during the contractor’s performance in addressing engineering concerns up-front and early in the design/development process, considering: systems architecture, design, manufacturing, integration and support, configuration control, documentation, test and evaluation.

c. If there were any weaknesses identified above, what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

d. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Quality performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.2. SCHEDULE

a. What delivery/schedule strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of the timeliness of completing the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance)?

b. What was the significance and cause of these delivery/schedule strengths or weaknesses?

c. If there were any weaknesses identified above, what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

d. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Schedule performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.3. COST

a. What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost?

b. If the contractor experienced an overrun or underrun, please provide the percentage and describe the significance, causes, and contractor proposed solutions.

c. If not described in item b., what was the significance and cause of these Cost strengths or weaknesses?

d. If there were any weaknesses identified above (outside of those not described in item b.), what corrective actions have been taken to correct the weakness(es) and to what extent have the corrective actions been effective? Please describe the progress made to date. Also, please explain to what extent the corrective actions addressed the root cause of the weakness(es) and led to systemic improvement such that similar problems would not reoccur.

e. Overall, I would rate the contractor's Cost performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.4. MANAGEMENT

4.2.4.1. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENSS

What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), or other Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)), the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction? Consider the contractor’s responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract/order requirements during the period or performance specified above.

4.2.4.2. SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT

What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the prime contractor with respect to the timely award and management of subcontracts? Did the prime contractor devote effort to managing subcontracts and were subcontractors an integral part of the contractor’s team? Did the prime contractor make an effort to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and apply corporate resources in a timely fashion to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance? Did the prime contractor ensure prompt subcontractor payments? Did the prime contractor manage subcontractors to ensure compliance with labor and safety standards at the subcontract level? If this contract is set aside for small business, did the contractor comply with any limitations on subcontracting?

4.2.4.3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND OTHER MANAGEMENT

a. What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of discharging its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identify and apply resources required to meet schedule requirements; assign responsibilities for tasks/actions required by contract/order; and communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner?

b. What were the contractor’s risk management practices, especially the ability to identify risks and formulate and implement risk mitigation plans?

c. If applicable, identify and provide information on any other areas that are unique to the contract/order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere under the Management Assessment.

4.2.4.4. MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL

What strengths or weaknesses were demonstrated by the contractor in terms of selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel? How well did the contractor match the qualifications of the key position, as described in the contract/order, with the person who filled the key position? Did the contractor support key personnel so they were able to work effectively? If a key person did not perform well, what action was taken by the contractor to correct this? If a replacement of a key person was necessary, did the replacement meet or exceed the qualifications of the position as described in the contract/order schedule?

4.2.4.5. OVERALL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

Overall, I would rate the contractor's Management performance as:

☐Exceptional ☐Very Good ☐Satisfactory ☐Marginal ☐Unsatisfactory

4.2.5. OTHER

Is there any other information regarding this contract/order that you think would be helpful to our evaluation? If so please explain. An example of additional information that could be helpful to our evaluation include security concerns, the kind of business relationship strengths or weaknesses related to cooperation with business partners/customers, customer satisfaction, etc.

4.3 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I _______ recommend them for similar requirement in the future.

☐ would ☐ would not

Signature _____________________________________________ Date _____________ Please note that electronic signatures are acceptable. An e-mail from the originator of this document will suffice. Signatures (electronic or email) verify that the signatory completed this form and agrees with the information contained within it.