J-14 Past Performance Info Survey.REV.docx

Attachment J-14 (Revised) Rev 09/11

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

COMMANDING OFFICER

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL MAINTENANCE CENTER

P. O. BOX 215, PORTSMOUTH, VA 23705-0215

Past Performance Information (PPI) Survey

Dear Recipient:

The completed Past Performance Information (PPI) questionnaire shall be submitted directly to the PCO, Lyn Sylfest at FAX number (757) 396-1762, telephone number (757) 396-5041, Ext 402 or email at MARMC_NRFK_411_Procurement@navy.mil. DO NOT return this form to the contractor being evaluated. Please complete this questionnaire as a coordinated effort for the Contracting Officer of this solicitation.

In accordance with the Past Performance Assessment Clause of the subject contract and in accordance with FAR subpart 42.15, a Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) shall be conducted. In conformance with Instruction 4330.1, the PPI survey form must be completed to facilitate issuance of a CPAR. Due to your involvement with and knowledge of this contract, you must complete and submit the below information.

PPI surveys are utilized in the Government Best Value Source Selection process and the Award Fee Evaluation process. NSSA requires objective rationale, uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal prejudice in rating the contractor’s past performance. Please provide serial numbers and dates of all supporting documentation (i.e., deficiency reports, letters of concern or show cause, and letters of commendation).

The term “Government’s benefit” should be used synonymously with “customer’s benefit” for purposes of this evaluation.

This survey shall be completed electronically and submitted to the immediate supervisor/Class Team Leader within the time allotted by the CPARS Focal Point, and will cover all work performed in the Planning and Execution CLIN/SubCLIN.

Thank you for your quick response and assistance.

The following adjectival ratings and criteria shall be used when assessing all past performance elements. If you have questions, please contact Cindy Bailey @ (757) 396-5041 X450 (cynthia.bailey@navy.mil).

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND CRITERIA

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

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, you should identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to the Government. However, a singular significant benefit could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should be no significant weaknesses noted.

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

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, you should identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. Also, there should be no significant weaknesses noted.

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

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, any problems encountered should have been recovered from without impact to the overall contract. Also, there should be limited significant weaknesses noted.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify a corrective action or the contractor’s proposed action was only marginally effective or not fully implemented.

Note: To justify a Marginal rating, you should identify a significant event/ problem 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 (i.e., Corrective Action Request (CAR) or official correspondence).

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

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, you should identify multiple events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how they impacted the Government. However, a singular problem could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (i.e., Corrective Action Request (CAR) or official correspondence).

SUPPORTING NARRATIVES ARE MANDATORY

Date of Evaluation: Click here to enter text.

Your Name: Click here to enter text. Position: Click here to enter text.

Organization/Agency/Command: Click here to enter text.

Telephone Number: Click here to enter text.

Cell: Click here to enter text. Email Address: Click here to enter text.

Contractor (being evaluated): Click here to enter text.

Contract Specialist/Contractor Provide:

Name of Vessel: Click here to enter text. Hull No.: Click here to enter text. Location of Contract Performance: Click here to enter text.

Contract Number: Click here to enter text. CLIN(s): Click here to enter text. Award Fee Evaluation Period: Click here to enter text.

Availability Dates at Completion: Click here to enter text. to Click here to enter text.

Budgeted Estimated Cost (without fees): Click here to enter text.

Estimate at Completion (EAC): Click here to enter text.

Variance $: Click here to enter text. Variance %: Click here to enter text.

Over-run or Under-run: Click here to enter text.

Total # New Work RCCs: Click here to enter text.

Total # Growth RCCs: Click here to enter text.

Cumulative Total for Growth RCCs (proposed cost): Click here to enter text.

Cumulative Total for Growth RCCs (settled cost): Click here to enter text.

Small Business Utilization %: Click here to enter text.

Total $$ recouped for future maintenance as a result of under-run: Click here to enter text.

Project Manager/Contractor Provide:

Controlling Work Items and major trade efforts (including specification item number and description):

Total # Specifications Written: Click here to enter text.

Total # Specifications Definitized: Click here to enter text.

Total # Outside Repair Activities (AITs, IDIQ, FMA): Click here to enter text.

Total # Outside Repair Activities effectively incorporated into contractor’s production schedule: Click here to enter text.

Average Turnaround Time for Pricing Growth (# days): Click here to enter text.

Contractual /Major Milestones (list milestone, date achieved, on time, early or late, and explanation for early or late). NOTE: If your availability is worked under a Spiral II MSMO contract, make sure you address contractual milestones. Other “major” milestones can also be addressed here, but separate the contractual ones from the major ones by leaving a blank space between them.

Quality Assurance Specialist/Contractor Provide:

List 3 major subcontractors and description of effort performed:

Number of Method “B” Corrective Action Requests Issued:

Average # days for acceptable CAR response: Click here to enter text.

If CAR was significant, please provide serial number and brief description:

CAR #: Click here to enter text. Description: Click here to enter text.

Number of contractor-generated “internal” deficiency reports issued: Click here to enter text.

Total # Inspections: Click here to enter text.

Total # Inspections Rejected: Click here to enter text.

Total # “G” Point Inspections: Click here to enter text.

Total # “G” Point Inspections Rejected: Click here to enter text.

Total # PCPs: Click here to enter text.

Total # PCPs Approved on First Submittal: Click here to enter text.

Average # Days from PCP submittal to start of work: Click here to enter text.

1. TECHNICAL (Performance or Quality of Product):

· Contractor compliance with contract requirements

· Accuracy of the contractor’s reports and procedures such as condition found reports and process control procedures

· Impact on the availability and resources of the customer by contractor’s actions or inactions

· Contractor’s responsiveness to technical direction (not resulting in any change to the contract price or delivery date)

· Effectiveness of the contractor’s recommended solutions

· Condition of the ship or vessel (whether the ship or vessel was materially ready to support Ship’s Force when needed)

· Contractor’s ability to evaluate problems and provide corrective actions

· Contractor’s responsiveness to and control of technical details to ensure that configuration management is maintained

· Contractor’s effectiveness of control of GFM/CFM through final disposition

· Contractor’s technical effectiveness of selection and control of its subcontractors

· Quality of contractor’s repairs and alterations

· Adequacy of the contractor’s quality management system

· Use and preparation of 4-E specifications

Provide specific examples of the contractor’s work to support the recommended rating. The narrative must tell the whole story and be supported by objective data.

Strengths: Click here to enter text.

Weaknesses: Click here to enter text.

Based on the above comments, the recommended technical rating is: Click here to enter text.

2. SCHEDULE (Timeliness of Performance):

· Contractor’s effectiveness in meeting scheduled dates and milestones

· Contractor’s effectiveness of coordinating its work with that of other entities (subcontractors, Ship’s Force, NSSA Production Department, AITs, NNSY and IDIQ contractors)

· Contractor’s responsiveness to contract changes and administrative requirements

· Contractor’s meeting contract redelivery (including contract closeout, reporting responsibilities and contract administration)

· Contractor’s effectiveness in manpower and material utilization

· Timeliness and efficiency of the contractor’s scheduling system and production schedules.

Provide specific examples of the contractor’s work to support the recommended rating. The narrative must tell the whole story and be supported by objective data.

Strengths: Click here to enter text.

Weaknesses: Click here to enter text.

Based on the above comments, the recommended schedule rating is: Click here to enter text.

3. COST CONTROL:

· Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing and controlling contract costs

· Whether the contractor experienced cost over-run or under-run and percent relative to negotiated amount

· Contractor’s effectiveness and completeness of cost estimates and proposals

· Contractor’s use and accuracy of historical cost data or other supporting cost data

· Contractor’s timeliness and completeness of Cost Funds Status Reports/Cost Schedule Status Reports

· Contractor’s timeliness and completeness of Variance Analyses

· Contractor’s use (number) of Special Small Business Subcontractors

· Contractor’s usage (percent of dollars) of total Small Business Subcontracted

Provide specific examples of the contractor’s work to support the recommended rating. The narrative must tell the whole story and be supported by objective data.

Strengths: Click here to enter text.

Weaknesses: Click here to enter text.

Based on the above comments, the recommended cost control rating is: Click here to enter text.

4. MANAGEMENT:

· Contractor’s effectiveness in managing the overall contract effort

· Contractor’s promptness and accuracy in problem notification

· The degree of the contractor’s reasonableness and cooperation

· The degree of the contractor’s proactive approach to contract performance

· Completeness in identifying and correcting deficiencies (i.e., CARs) in a timely manner, and effectiveness of contractor-recommended solutions to prevent recurrence

· Contractor’s effective and timely resolution of warranty items

· Contractor’s effective and timely compliance with environmental regulations and requirements

· Contractor’s effectiveness in their management of quality assurance and test organization

· Proactive work ethics (teamwork, cooperation, professionalism and commitment to total project success)

· The ability of the contractor to accept and accomplish growth work without impacting the schedule

· Application of lessons learned to future efforts as well as the submittal of effective management and value engineering changes

Provide specific examples of the contractor’s work to support the recommended rating. The narrative must tell the whole story and be supported by objective data.

Strengths: Click here to enter text.

Weaknesses: Click here to enter text.

Based on the above comments, the recommended management rating is: Click here to enter text.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (when filled in) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (see FAR 3.104)