10_of_19_DRFP_Att_J.2-1_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx

DRAFT Request for Proposals 10 of 19 – DRFP Att J.2-1 Past Performance Questionnaire

NNC16ZMX004R

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center is currently conducting a competitive procurement to buy the design, development, construction and integration of a space flight adaptor which is the structural support/interface between Orion (via a spacecraft adaptor) and the Exploration Upper Stage. The selected contractors will furnish the personnel, management, facilities and other resources required to accomplish the tasks and analyses to perform this mission.

NASA has placed increased emphasis on relevant experience and past performance as an evaluation factor for contract award. To assist in evaluating proposals under this procurement, your company has been selected as a reference and is thereby requested to provide descriptive information for the following contract:

Company Name (Being Evaluated) and Address:

Period of Performance: Final Contract Value:

Description of Contract:

Instructions Please respond to the attached questionnaire. Questions in Section I are self-explanatory. For Section II, summarize contractor performance in each of the following rating areas: Technical Performance including Safety and Mission Assurance Performance, Schedule Performance, and Cost and Business Management. Each criterion should be assigned a rating, from highest to lowest, of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. If a particular criterion is not applicable, it should be rated in the far right column as N/A (Not Applicable). The evaluator is encouraged to provide comments on any rating to further support a particular rating.

Please email the completed form to Daniel.M.Saccomando@nasa.gov, Subject Line: USA Relevant Experience and Past Performance Questionnaire by [TBD] by 4:30pm EST.

PAST PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW/QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

This evaluation should be completed by the Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting manager (for commercial clients), Contracting Officer’s Representative or Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COR or COTR), Task Monitor (TM), or other person identified in the contract by the Contracting Officer.

In compliance with the direction in the FAR, the information contained in this evaluation is not subject to view by anyone other than the designated source selection evaluation personnel.

INSTRUCTIONS

This evaluation should be completed as indicated below. This package consists of the following:

SECTION DESCRIPTION

SECTION I.

BASIC CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. Client Information:

Name

Title

Contact Information

· Phone Number

· E-mail

Company Name

· Address

· City, State, Zip

Length of time involved with Offeror

2. Offeror’s Information:

Company Name

Contract Title

· Number

· Type

· Period of Performance

· Total Value (with all exercised options)

Business Size Classification

Contract Description (include whether Governmental/Non- Governmental)

Average number of employees on contract

3. During this contract period of performance, this firm was the:

[ ] Prime Contractor [ ] Significant Subcontractor [ ] Team Member [ ] Other (please describe)

4. What percentage of the total contract value did this firm perform? ____%

5. Does a corporate relationship exist between the company being evaluated and your organization?

[ ] No [ ] Yes (please describe)

6. Unusual contract features or conditions, if any:

SECTION II.

RATED ELEMENTS AND COMMENTS

The Ratings evaluation summarizes the contractor performance in Technical Performance including Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Performance, Schedule Performance, and Cost and Business Management. Each criterion should be assigned a rating, from highest to lowest, of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. If a particular criterion is not applicable, it should be rated as N/A. The evaluator is encouraged to provide comments on any rating to further support a particular rating.

The following definitions and instructions should be used as guidance to aid in evaluating the criteria in the Factors/Ratings tables. Please read the definitions and instructions before rating any criteria to ensure that each criterion is graded in the context of the definitions. Also, please ensure that this assessment is consistent with any other assessments that have been done for the same contractor for the same work, such as for payment of fee purposes, exercise of option, other past performance requests, etc.

The rating scale:

Excellent- Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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 assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Good- 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.

Fair- Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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.

Poor- 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- Performance information not recent or relevant as defined in the Solicitation. Unable to provide assessment.

Ratings questions:

Based on your knowledge of the contract identified, please provide your assessment of how well the Contractor performed on each of the following concerns.

Technical Performance

1) Overall performance in planning and controlling the contract effort.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

2) Overall quality of hardware design and development.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

3) Overall quality of hardware production and assembly.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

4) Overall quality of hardware testing or qualification.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

5) Overall quality of hardware integration.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

6) Insight in understanding customer requirements and priorities.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

7) Ability to resolve unforseen technical problems.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

8) Ability to correct performance deficiencies.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

9) Effectiveness of identifying and mitigating risks.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

10) Effectiveness of SMA planning and execution.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

11) Any other comments about the Contractor’s technical performance.

Schedule Performance

12) History of meeting milestones on schedule.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

13) Overall schedule performance.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

14) Ability to resolve unforeseen schedule problems.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

15) Any other comments about the Contractor’s schedule performance.

Cost and Business Management

16) Adherence to estimated costs and contract cost targets.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

17) Ability to effectively forecast and control costs.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

18) Accuracy of financial reports and credibility of forecasts of future resource requirements.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

19) History of establishing and maintaining an effective quality management system.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

20) Ability to identify and manage critical subcontract efforts.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

21) Effectiveness in managing supply chain.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

22) Record in meeting small business subcontracting goals.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

23) Record in managing complex aerospace flight hardware projects.

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

24) Any other comments about the Contractor’s cost and business performance.

SECTION III.

GENERAL PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

1. Were there any appreciable cost overruns or underruns?

[ ] No [ ] Yes (If yes, what was the magnitude and the reason?)

2. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for convenience or default or subject to litigation?

[ ] No [ ] Yes (If yes, please explain.)

3. Did this contract contain an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirement?

[ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, please discuss their overall performance. Were there any issues? How timely were reports delivered?

4. Did the contractor have any issues with export control or data security?

5. Did the contractor have any Safety and Mission Assurance or Quality Assurance issues?

6. Would you contract with this company again? If not, please explain why.

7. What was the Contractor’s strongest attribute and why?

8. What was the contractor’s weakest attribute and why? Were efforts made to remedy this weakness?

9. Using the rating criteria, how would you rate the contractor overall?

[ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor [ ] N/A

[This form contains Source Selection Information when completed (See FAR 3.104)]