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
Issued by
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Kennedy Space Center

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

Other files attached to Architect-Engineering Professional Environmental Remediation Services, newest first.
File Type Posted
Tab_050_-_Amendment_03.pdf PDF
Tab_050_-_Amendment_02.pdf PDF
Tab_050_-_Amendment_01.pdf 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
E-MailStefania.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 .