NEXV3 SIR Sect L_Att L02.docx

693KA8-22-R-00###

Attachment L02

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONAIRE

Block 3

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS SENDING REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIR FORMS:

Offerors must provide this Past-Performance Questionnaire L02 form to appropriate customer points of contact from at least two (2), but no more than four (4), current or prior contracts. Offerors must provide a total of four (4) past-customer references (e.g., Offerors may provide two (2) references from one past performance effort).

For Government customers, the Past-Performance Questionnaire must be provided to either the Contracting Officer (CO) or the program staff. The program staff reference should include individuals with firsthand knowledge of the Offerors performance such as a Program Manager, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or a Task Order Manager or Representative.

For past performance under other contracts, such as commercial contracts, the Past-Performance Questionnaire must be completed by an individual, or individuals, with duties similar to those of the Government CO and COR.

To aid the persons completing the Past-Performance Questionnaire, the Offeror must complete Block 1 of the Past-Performance Questionnaire to identify its name and the specific contract being referenced.

The Offeror is responsible for following up to ensure that past-customer references submit the Past-Performance Questionnaire.

The due date for Offerors selected past-customer references to complete their Past-Performance Questionnaires is the same time and date set for all proposal Volume submissions and is specified in Sections L.3.1 and L.3.3 of this SIR. Offeror-selected past-customer references may submit their completed questionnaires prior to the time and due date specified by this SIR.

The Past-Performance Questionnaire must be submitted directly by the persons selected by the Offeror to complete this form via email to the FAA CO and CS identified in Section L.2 of the NEXCOM Version 3 (V3) UHF/VHF Radio SIR (693KA8-23-R-00005).

INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSON PROVIDING REFERENCE:

In order to assess potential contractors under the NEXCOM Version 3 (V3) UHF/VHF Radio SIR (693KA8-23-R-00005), the FAA Contracting Officer (CO) is obtaining past performance information with respect to each Offeror.

You have been selected as a Past-Performance Reference by one of the Offerors. The name of the Offeror, contract title, and contract number are identified on the next page under Block 1. Please verify the information submitted by the Offeror in Block 1 and work with them to correct any information, if not accurately provided. Within this evaluation questionnaire, the Offeror is referred to as “the Contractor” relative to its support of your organization.

You are requested to complete Block 2 (i.e., your information) and provide past performance ratings for Areas 1-7 of Block 3 (i.e., Past Performance Questionnaire). Narrative explanations are only requested when a rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory is indicated. If an Area was not a task on your contract, do not provide a rating and write “N/A” in the explanation field. Optional comments can be provided in Area 8.

Once complete, convert to PDF format, electronically sign in Block 4, and email to alessha.m.mason@faa.gov and shaun.miles@faa.gov no later than 3PM (Eastern Time) on May 24, 2023. Offeror-selected past-customer references (you) may submit your completed questionnaires prior to the time and due date.

The subject line in the submission email must clearly indicate: NEXCOM V3 Radio Past Performance Questionnaire for <Company Name> and the message shall originate from the past-customer reference’s Government or commercial email system.

In addition to this questionnaire, you may receive a follow-up phone call to confirm or clarify information. This is a major FAA acquisition and your input into this evaluation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding this questionnaire or require assistance, please submit inquiries to alessha.m.mason@faa.gov and shaun.miles@faa.gov

693KA8-23-R-00005

Page L02-1

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONAIRE

Block 1 (Completed by Offeror) Offeror’s Information

a. Contractor Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

b. Contract Title:

Click or tap here to enter text.

c. Contract Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

d. Role on Contract (e.g., Prime or Subcontractor):

Click or tap here to enter text.

e. Period of Performance: [Start Date] to [End Date or Ongoing]:

Click or tap here to enter text.

f. Summary of Effort (include relevance to NEXCOM V3 Procurement):

Click or tap here to enter text.

Block 2 Reference Information

Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Name of Organization (Agency or Company):

Click or tap here to enter text.

Current Position Title:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Role of Reference Contract (e.g., CO, COR, PM):

Click or tap here to enter text.

Mailing Address:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Telephone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Email Address:

Click or tap here to enter text.

693KA8-22-R-00###

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONAIRE

Area 1: Timeliness of Performance – To what extent did the Contract adhere to contract delivery schedules.

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded requirements and expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

· Contractor frequently did not meet requirements and was often below customer expectations

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 2: Product and Associated Services Performance – To what extent did the product and associated services meet or exceed contract requirements. To what extent did the Contractor solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from the customer.

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 3: Program Management – To what extent did the Contractor successfully manage all aspects of the contract. Did the Contractor commit adequate resources in a timely manner to the contract in order to meet the requirement and delivery schedule? Did the Contractor implement corrective actions when appropriate?

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded requirements and expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 4: Customer Relationship – To what extent did the Contractor communicate in an effective and proactive manner. To what extent was the Contractor proactive in responding to problems, issues and customer concerns?

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· No change orders were submitted

Good

· No change ord3ers were submitted Satisfactory

· Minimal number of change orders were submitted Marginal

· Contractor submitted several change orders

Unsatisfactory

· Contractor submitted numerous change orders

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 5: Maintenance and Problem Tracking – To what extent was the Contractor’s maintenance and problem tracking system sufficient? Did the Contractor keep the customer informed of status in a timely manner?

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded requirements and expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 6: Maintenance and Repair – Did the Contractor provide maintenance and repair service? Did they meet the terms of the contract in a timely and cost efficient manner?

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded requirements and expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 7: Training and Documentation – Did the Contractor provide training? Did the Contractor provide Technical documentation (e.g. user manuals)? Was the training and documentation user friendly and sufficient for your operation?

Please objectively assess the requesting firm in each performance element below by assigning an “X” to the most appropriate rating as described below:

· Contractor consistently exceeded requirements and expectations

Good

· Contractor met and sometimes exceeded requirements and customer expectations Satisfactory

· Contractor met requirements Marginal

· Contractor did not consistently meet requirements and was sometimes below customer expectations

Unsatisfactory

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Explanation (if rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory):

Area 8: Optional Comments

Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again? If no, please provide reasons.

Any additional comments you would like to share?

Block 4 Signature

Signature & Date