Attachments L-1 L-2 L-3.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Antarctic Support Contract
- Solicitation number
- NSF-AIL-DRFP-08-0001
About this file
RFP Amendment 007 - Section L Attachments L-1 L-2 L-3
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 99 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
ATTACHMENT L-1
KEY PERSONNEL RESUME
If extra space is required, use an additional page and cross-reference additional information to the paragraph number, however, do not exceed the three (3) page limit.
1. Name of Offeror: _____________________________________________________
2. Name of Key Person: _________________________________________________
3. Proposed Position: ___________________________________________________
4. Percent of Time the Person will be supporting the project _____________________
5. Name of Company/Partner Key Person will work for: _________________________
6. Duties and responsibilities in proposed position tied to the SOW identified in the RFP: ______________________________________________________________________
7. Chronological work history - Start with the current position and work backwards:
A. Name and Address of the Firm: ______________________________________________________________________
B. Position Held: ______________________________________________________________________
C. Dates of Employment: _______________________________________________
D. Summary of responsibilities, accomplishments, and results: (Provide a concise description of major duties and responsibilities for each job relevant to the proposed position. Include specific examples demonstrating the ability to develop and implement innovative approaches and adopt practices that foster continuous improvement, challenge the status-quo and existing paradigm in formulating and implementing safe, high quality, timely, and cost-effective programs. List the type and number of personnel supervised.) __________________ ________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Name, Title, Phone Number, and E-mail of Supervisor: ______________________________________________________________________
8. Education - List degrees, disciplines, years, institutions: ______________________________________________________________________
9. Citizenship: ______________________________________________________________________
10. Level of current security clearance (if any): ______________________________________________________________________
11. Professional affiliations/registrations: ______________________________________________________________________
12. Publications, awards, honors, and professional recognition: ______________________________________________________________________
13. Explain why the individual’s education, experience, leadership, and demonstrated performance have prepared him/her for the proposed position: ______________________________________________________________________
14: References (list three) - Name, Title, Address, Telephone Number, e-mail:
15: Signature of Key Person and Date:
By submission of this information, the Key Person and offeror authorize NSF to contact references and previous employers provided to verify accuracy. NSF may consider the information received in evaluation of the offeror’s proposed key personnel.
ATTACHMENT L- 2
PAST PERFORMANCE COVER LETTER SAMPLE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE IAW FAR 2.101 & FAR 3.104 (When filled in.)
Request for Proposal # _______________________________________________
Past Performance Cover Letter for ______________________________________
Dear “Client Name”:
We are currently responding to the National Science Foundation Request for Proposal No.______________ for the management and operation of National Science Foundation activities for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). USAP represents the national effort in Antarctica for scientific research conducted by universities and research institutions, as well as by other Federal agencies. The USAP is responsible for enabling the success of science programs in Antarctica through sustaining logistics and support infrastructure at permanent stations, remote field camps, laboratory facilities, and on research vessels.
The contractor selected for this effort shall operate and maintain the United States' facilities in Antarctica and will be responsible for a wide range of activities which include:
· Technical Management and Administration;
· Science Technical Project Services;
· Information Technology and Communications;
· Infrastructure, Operations, and Professional Services; and,
· Transportation and Logistics.
The solicitation places significant emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. In addition to requesting the attached Past Performance Questionnaire be completed, we are requiring that clients of entities responding to their solicitations 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. We have identified Mr. /Ms. _____________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on their knowledge concerning our work.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE IAW FAR 2.101 & FAR 3.104 (When filled in.)
We would appreciate you filling out the attached questionnaire and faxing it or e-mailing it directly to the National Science Foundation no later than 7 calendar days after receipt of this letter:
National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Polar Programs Fax : (703) 292-9080 E-mail: USAPrecompete@nsf.gov
We request, whenever possible, that you expand upon answers on the questionnaire by providing comments/supporting narratives. Since your response must be combined with other responses to obtain an overall past performance evaluation, a short suspense is required to meet the schedule.
Thank you for your assistance.
Signature Block of Offeror:
Signature
Name
Title
Date
ATTACHMENT L - 3
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE IAW FAR 2.101 & FAR 3.104 (WHEN FILLED IN)
Request for Proposal # __________________________________________________
Program Title __________________________________________________________
A. General Information
1. Complete Name of Offeror __________________________________________
2. Offeror’s Address, Telephone Number, and Facsimile Number (with Area Code)
3. Contract Number and Type of Contract_________________________________
4. Dollar Value of Contract_____________________________________________
5. Period(s) of Performance____________________________________________
6. Program Title and Brief Description____________________________________
7. Name/Title/Contact Information of the Person Completing the Questionnaire
8. Signature: ________________________________________________________
B. Instructions
Please complete this questionnaire based on the following guidance:
1. Indicate, based on the adjectival definitions below, the contractor’s performance on the identified program. Assessments should reflect only prime contractor performance.
2. Please provide typed or written responses.
3. Please check an adjectival rating corresponding to your answer, or check “N/A” if you are unable to provide a score for the question.
Outstanding
Offeror’s performance significantly exceeded most or all contract requirements.
Very Good
Offeror’s performance exceeded many of the contract requirements.
Satisfactory
Offeror’s performance met contract requirements.
Unsatisfactory
Offeror’s performance failed to meet the minimum contract requirements.
N/A
No past performance information is available for this question.
4. Please fax or e-mail your completed questionnaire within (7) days after receipt to:
National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Polar Programs
FAX : (703) 292-9080
E-mail: USAPrecompete@nsf.gov
1. Management Approach
| # |
| Question |
| Outstanding |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| a) |
| How satisfied were you with the contractor’s organizational structure in terms of addressing and meeting contractual performance issues and conditions? |
| b) |
| How effective was the contractor at identifying and implementing effective risk mitigation strategies to maintain contract performance, quality, schedule, cost, and contract requirements? |
| c) |
| How effective was the contractor at managing teaming arrangements and subcontractors? |
| d) |
| How successful was the contractor at recruiting and retaining strong, well-qualified technical personnel? |
| e) |
| How successful was the contractor at recruiting and retaining skilled and experienced management personnel? |
| f) |
| How effective was the contractor in performing contract requirements without frequent Government guidance and/or direction? |
| g) |
| How effective was the contractor at communicating with the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative? |
| h) |
| How effectively and efficiently did the contractor manage all aspects of the contract? |
2. Technical Approach
| # |
| Question |
| Outstanding |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| a) |
| How well did the contractor support the scientific mission through comprehensive planning, provision of resources, and support for field and laboratory work? |
| b) |
| How effective was the contractor at providing robust Information Technology and Communications infrastructure, security, and services ensuring efficient operations, administration, and support of contract requirements? |
| c) |
| How well did the contractor plan, manage, and execute necessary services required to support permanent and temporary facilities (e.g. roads, airfields, ports, utilities, fuel systems, etc) and other infrastructure? |
| d) |
| How well did the contractor demonstrate the use of a fully integrated supply chain and cargo and personnel movement network (e.g. air, land, and sea)? |
| e) |
| How effective was the contractor at assuring compliance with Environment, Safety & Health (ESH) program requirements? |
| f) |
| How well did the contractor meet or exceed performance metrics? |
| g) |
| How effective was the quality assurance program that was developed and implemented by the contractor? |
| h) |
| How well was the contractor able to identify and solve technical problems that arose during contract performance? |
| i) |
| How responsive was the contractor to improving performance after being notified of deficiencies? |
| j) |
| How satisfied were you with the contractor’s work products? |
| k) |
| Overall, how well did the contractor perform? |
3. Transition
| # |
| Question |
| Outstanding |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| a) |
| How well did the contractor execute the transition of resources and personnel? |
4. Cost/Price Information
| # |
| Question |
| Outstanding |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| a) |
| How well did the contractor use a project management system that included planning, budgeting, status tracking, cost reporting, baseline management, critical path analysis, and work breakdown structure? How effective was it? |
| b) |
| How responsive was the contractor to variations in workload and available funding? |
| c) |
| How accurate were the contractor’s cost estimates? |
| d) |
| How well did the contractor control costs? |
| e) |
| How effective was the contractor in proactively alerting the Government of cost changes? |
| f) |
| How satisfied were you with the contractor’s relationship with its subcontractors (e.g. payments, labor relations, etc.)? |
5. Extent of Participation with Small Business Concerns
| # |
| Question |
| Outstanding |
| Very Good |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| N/A |
| a) |
| How well did the contractor meet small business subcontracting goals? |
6. General Contractual Information
a) Did the contractor ever receive a Cure Letter or Show Cause Letter? If “yes”, please explain.
Yes No
b) Did the contractor meet delivery schedule(s)? If “no”, please explain.
Yes No
c) Please describe any major problem(s) or obstacle(s) encountered while working with the contractor. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d) Please describe the contractor’s strength(s) and weakness (es).
e) Please use the following space to add any other information not included above that you feel would be beneficial to NSF concerning the award of this contract:
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE IAW FAR 2.101 & FAR 3.104 (WHEN FILLED IN)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .