Tab_050_-_Attachment_1_-_PPQ.docx
DOCX document 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Architect-Engineering Professional Environmental Remediation Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- NNK17615783R
About this file
This synopsis is for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for architect-engineering professional environmental remediation services at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration intends to award up to three IDIQ contracts worth a maximum total value of $80 million over five years to provide investigation, design, and implementation of remedial actions for hazardous and solid waste sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action requirements. Services will include producing corrective action documents, assessments, remedial designs, interim measures, and operation and maintenance of groundwater remediation systems. Responses are due by April 14, 2017. Firms will be evaluated on specialized experience, professional qualifications, past performance, capacity, and local knowledge.
Attachment 1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Tab_050_-_Amendment_03.pdf | ||
| Tab_050_-_Amendment_02.pdf | ||
| Tab_050_-_Amendment_01.pdf | ||
| Tab_050_-_Attachment_2_-_Synopsis_Provisions.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENT 1
SYNOPSIS NUMBER: NNK17615783R
ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS AND RATING GUIDELINES
Instructions
This evaluation is to be completed as indicated below. The Architect-Engineering (A-E) firm must provide one evaluation for project identified in section F of SF 330. For purposes of these evaluations, the term “contract” is synonymous with “project”. This package consists of the following:
| Section |
| Description |
| Who completes |
| Section I |
| Basic contract information |
| A-E firm being evaluated |
| Section II |
| Evaluator identification information |
| Customer Evaluator |
| Section III |
| A-E Past Performance Report |
| Customer Evaluator |
Questionnaires will not be accepted directly from the A-E firm. Customer Evaluators must send evaluations directly to the Contracting Officer. The Customer Evaluator must submit their completed questionnaires via e-mail to both addresses listed below to arrive no later than 2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 14, 2017.
| Name: | Sharon White | |
| E-Mail Address: | Sharon.L.White@nasa.gov |
And to:
| Name: | Stefania Wanzie | |
| Stefania.I.Wanzie@nasa.gov |
Section I: Basic Contract Information
To be completed by the A-E firm submitting a submission for evaluation.
A-E Firm Name:
Contract Title:
Contract Number:
Contract Award Date:
Contract Completion Date:
Point of Contact (Customer Evaluator) Name/Address/Office Phone Number:
Brief Description of Work Performed:
Section II: Evaluator identification information To be completed by Customer Evaluator.
NASA will NOT divulge the names of the individuals providing reference information about an A-E firm’s past performance.
Name of A-E Contractor Being Evaluated:
A-E Contractor’s Status (Prime or Sub-Consultant):
A-E Contract Number:
Description of A-E Services Provided:
A-E Contract Period of Performance:
| A-E Contract or Subcontract Value at Award: |
| $ |
| A-E Contract or Subcontract Value at Completion: |
| $ |
Evaluator’s Company/Agency Name:
Evaluator’s Name (Typed/Printed):
Evaluator’s Signature:
Phone Number:
Facsimile Number:
E-mail address:
Dates of Involvement in Contract:
Date Questionnaire Completed:
Section III: A-E Past Performance Report
RATING DEFINITIONS
For each question below, please rate the contractor from Unsatisfactory to Excellent (as defined below) and please elaborate on the specifics of your rating in the Narrative Summary. A rating of Not Applicable should be used if either the question is not applicable or the answer is unknown. The Not Applicable rating is neutral and will have no impact on the assessment of Past Performance. The Contracting Officer may contact the respondent for additional information, if needed.
| Quality of Work |
| Cost Control |
& Estimating
| Compliance with Performance Schedules |
| Management Effectiveness |
Excellent
| There were no quality problems. |
| There were no cost issues. |
| There were no delays. |
| Responses to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were effective and responsive. |
Good
| Technical issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays did not impact achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were usually effective and responsive. |
Fair
| Technical issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays required minor Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were somewhat effective and responsive. |
Poor
| Technical issues required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Cost issues required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Delays required major Client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were marginally effective and responsive. |
Unsatisfactory
| Non-conformances or technical issues compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Client’s resources. |
| Cost issues compromised performance of contract requirements. |
| Delays compromised the achievement of contract requirements, despite the use of Client’s resources. |
| Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were not effective and not responsive. |
Section III (Cont’d): A-E Past Performance Report Item
FACTORS/RATINGS
| Excellent |
| Good |
| Fair |
| Poor |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Not Applicable |
Quality of Work
| 1 |
| Overall skill level & technical competence of A-E’s personnel |
| 2 |
| Ability to identify risk factors and alternatives for alleviating risk |
| 3 |
| Ability to identify and solve problems expeditiously |
| 4 |
| Overall quality of delivered products |
Cost Control
| 5 |
| Ability to control contract cost (if the contract experienced an overrun, please comment in the Narrative Summary) |
| 6 |
| Ability to search for and apply cost efficient practices |
| 7 |
| Ability to provide accurate and complete cost estimates |
Compliance with Performance Schedules
| 8 |
| Ability to complete major tasks or key project milestones on schedule |
| 9 |
| Ability to provide timely reports and documentation submittals |
Management Effectiveness
| 10 |
| Ability to effectively coordinate, integrate & manage subcontractors |
| 11 |
| Ability of management team to show innovation and a proactive approach to problem identification and resolution |
| 12 |
| Ability to effectively interface with the Customer’s staff |
| 13 |
| Ability to respond to customer changes |
| 14 |
| Ability to meet project requirements |
| 15 |
| Ability to effectively communicate pertinent issues throughout the contract |
Customer Satisfaction
| 16 |
| How would you rate the A-E’s overall management performance on this contract |
| 17 |
| How would you rate the A-E’s overall technical performance on this contract |
| 18 |
| Would you use this A-E again? (If “No”, please comment in the Narrative Summary) |
| YES |
| No |
Section III (Cont’d): A-E Past Performance Report NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to elaborate on the specifics of the rating and to explain additional information not included above)
| Item |
| Comments |
PAST PERFORMANCE TRANSMITTAL LETTER - SAMPLE
This acquisition is for the Architect-Engineer (A-E) Professional Environmental Remediation Services to Investigate, Design, and Implement Remedial Actions at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida. This requirement may occasionally include work for other NASA Centers. Synopsis number NNK17615783R.
A-E CONTRACTOR LETTER: FORMAT
[Date of Letter] [Name and Address of A-E’s Customer] Attention: [Name and Designation of Customer Evaluator]
Dear [Customer Contact Name]:
We are currently responding to the NASA, Kennedy Space Center Request synopsis NNK17615783R. NASA is requesting that customers of entities responding to the synopsis participate in the evaluation process. We have included our project for your company/agency as a past performance reference. An A-E Past Performance Report is enclosed. We respectfully request that you complete Sections II and III of the enclosed evaluation and return the signed, completed questionnaire to both addresses listed below. Your completed questionnaire must arrive no later than 2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 14, 2017.
| Name: | Sharon White | |
| Email Address: | Sharon.L.White@nasa.gov |
And to:
| Name: | Stefania Wanzie | |
| Email Address: | Stefania.I.Wanzie@nasa.gov |
In order to maintain the integrity of this process, DO NOT return the Past Performance Report to us. Return it to the email or mailing address listed above.
Please direct any questions to the Contracting Officer, Sharon White at (321) 867-7230.
Sincerely, [Name of Signer] [Designation of Signer]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .