PPQ_NNA16591428R.docx
DOCX document 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Architectural & Engineering Services
- Solicitation number
- NNA16591428R
About this file
PPQ NNA16591428R
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Past Performance Questionnaire RFP No: NNA16591428R4497087R NASA ARC Facilities Support Services NNA16591428R14497087R Attachment J-20(A)
CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
Insert Date
Dear Client:
We are currently responding to the NASA Ames Research Center’s (ARC’s) SF-330 Architecture and Engineering Qualifications /Synopsis Request for Proposal (RFP) NNA16591428R14497087R for the procurement of Architectural & Engineering services at ARC. The A/E firm will provide: on-site engineering support services for the preparation of designs relating to new facilities, facility modifications, repairs, and maintenance; environmental compliance and remediation studies, remediation plans, and designs; energy life cycle cost analysis; facilities planning; master planning studies and facility usage investigations; information technology-based configuration management; re-certification of pressure vessels and systems; and energy and power reliability studies.
NASA Ames Research Center is placing increased emphasis in its procurements on relevant past performance with exceptional performance, management and specialized experience as a source selection factors. A requirement of this solicitation is that clients of entities responding to this SF-330 Architecture and Engineering Qualifications /Synopsis RFP be identified and their participation in the evaluation process be requested. In the event you are contacted for information on work we have performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.
Please complete the enclosed Past Performance Questionnaire and forward it directly to NASA Ames Research Center, Attn: Stephen Cox, M/S 213-1, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, telephone (650) 604-3015. Email responses should be sent to: Stephen.B.Cox@nasa.gov
The information contained in the completed Past Performance Questionnaire is considered sensitive and should be sent directly to NASA. If you have questions about the acquisition or the attached questionnaire, your questions must be directed to the NASA ARC POC identified above.
A response to this questionnaire is requested to the above address by Thursday 13 November, 2014.Sept 19, 2016.
We have identified Mr./Ms.________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on that person’s knowledge concerning our work.
Any general questions regarding our request may be directed to the undersigned. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Enclosure – Past Performance Questionnaire, (Attachment J-20(A))
Attachment J-20 Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation No: NNA14497087RNNA16591428R
I. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
| CONTRACTOR NAME: |
| CONTRACT NO: |
CONTRACTOR ADDRESS:
CONTRACT TYPE:
☐ FIRM-FIXED-PRICE
☐ COST REIMBURSEMENT
☐ OTHER: (specify)___
☐ ACTIVE ☐ COMPLETED
☐ ROUTINE ☐ COMPLEX
DATES OF PERFORMANCE:
FROM________TO________
AWARD AMOUNT: $
CURRENT TOTAL WITH MODS: $
GENERAL CONTRACT INFORMATION:
Competitive Procurement? ☐-Yes orOR ☐-No ☐-Follow-on orOR ☐-New Requirement?
Contract dollar value (including all options) $____________________ Was the referenced Contractor the Prime or Sub? ? ☐-Prime OR ☐-Sub What percentage of the overall effort was performed by the referenced Contractor? _________% Size of the referenced Contractor's work force (Work Year Equivalents [WYEs])_______________ If the contract has an award fee – what is the overall award fee average score _____________ Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience? ☐-Yes OR ☐-No If Yes – Explain
CONTRACT TITLE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
II. RESPONDENT INFORMATION
| NAME OF EVALUATOR: |
| E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
| POSITION TITLE: |
| ROLE IN CONTRACT |
AGENCY / COMPANY NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS:
| TELEPHONE NUMBER: |
| FAX NUMBER: |
III. REQUESTING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION
AGENCY (CUSTOMER) NAME: NASA Ames Research Center
POC NAME/TITLE/EMAIL: Stephen Cox / Contract Specialist / Stephen.B.Cox@nasa.gov
III. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
For Respondents: Please rate the Contractor in the following performance areas: Technical, Business, Management and Schedule. Check the box in the column which best describes the performance of that element or sub-element using the performance adjectives below. Please provide a short narrative to explain why you chose the adjective you did. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
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.
| 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 was 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. 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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Not Applicable |
| Information is not available to comment on the contractor’s record of past performance for this element or sub-element. |
| MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| COMMENTS: |
| 1. Offeror’s ability to anticipate/identify resources needed and then recruit, develop and retain a technically qualified workforce. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 2. Offeror’s ability to react and adjust staffing levels to meet surge in demand. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 3. Offeror’s ability to select, manage and coordinate subcontracted efforts. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 4. Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the Small Business goals implemented cost effectively for the Contract. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 5. Offeror’s quality control capabilities and performance | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 6. Offeror’s effectiveness (accurate, well-organized, comprehensive, easily understood) in communications: Written and oral | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 7. Offeror’s ability to manage multiple, concurrent and complex tasks. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 8. Offeror’s ability to use the “right person” to meet the job-at-hand: knowledgeable, experienced, effective | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 9. Offerors’ willingness to suggest and implement new technologies to improve quality/performance/cost-effectiveness. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 10. Offeror’s effectiveness in creating and managing project teams(assigning project manager and team members) | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 11. Offeror’s effectiveness to understand the task requirements and complete the work without change-orders. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| COMMENTS: |
| 1. Offeror’s overall skill level and technical competence of personnel. | ||||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | Please provide explanatory narratives to help in the overall evaluation. These narratives need not be lengthy but detailed enough to provide insight into the rating. These narratives are especially important for Exceptional and Unsatisfactory ratings. |
| 2. Offeror’s ability to identify and resolve technical problems (analysis of causes, impacts, and potential solutions). | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 3. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in project programming such as master planning.Offeror’s ability to provide supervision of technical personnel to ensure effective performance. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 4. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in design-build. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 5. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in code compliance review/assessments of facility/infrastructure designs. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 6. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in BIM.Offeror’s knowledge and ability to implement a Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Program | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 7. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience supporting tasks related to Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 8. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in storm water management. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 9. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in electrical protective relays, both mechanical and solid state.Offeror’s overall proficiency and ability to use Predictive Testing & Inspection (PT&I) technologies. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 10. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in 115K VAC, 13.8 KV, 4100volt-480volt distribution systems.Offeror’s proficiency in using Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS). | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 11. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in SharePoint/Box.Offeror’s proficiency in using Maximo Asset Management software (specific CMMS system expertise). | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 12. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in PLC controls systems. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 13. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in acoustics evaluations/studies. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 14. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in finite element analyses. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 15. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in ASME pressure systems certification/ compliance. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 16. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in LEED. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 17. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience preparing construction cost estimates. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 18. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in pollution prevention, such as RCRA, TSCA, Clean Air Act Clean Water Act, etc. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 19. Offeror’s knowledge, skill and experience in hazard/safety analyses. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| BUSINESS PERFORMANCE |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| COMMENTS: |
| 1. Offeror’s overall accounting proficiency (invoices match work completion status, etc.)(billing and costing accuracy, maintaining billing schedules, 533, etc). | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 2. Offeror’s ability to provide realistic and accurate cost/price estimates for changes and task orders in a timely manner. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
3. Offeror’s ability to maintain accurate equipment inventories.Offeror’s “fairness” in negotiating Change Orders/Modifications(price, schedule, fee)
| SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
| COMMENTS: |
| 1. Offeror’s ability to plan and provide realistic schedule estimates (Resource-Loaded schedules, Cost-Loaded schedules, CPM schedules). | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 2. Offeror’s ability to identify and resolve schedule problems. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| 3. Offeror’s ability to meet schedule deadlines and submit reports and deliverables on- time. | |||||
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
OVERALL EVALUATION:
How would you rate the Offeror’s Overall performance?
☐-Exceptional ☐-Very Good ☐-Satisfactory ☐-Marginal ☐-Unsatisfactory
OTHER INFORMATION
1. Is their other information not covered by this questionnaire that you feel would be important to sharestate?
| 2. | If the choice were yours alone, would you select this contractor again? ☐Yes ☐ No |
| If No, please comment. |
Date Evaluation Completed: ___________________
NNA1659142814497087R (Past Performance Questionnaire) This forms contains Source Selection Information when completed
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .