Attachment_4_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc

SP3300-13-R -0008

Attachment 4 PPQ

Dated 4/23/2013

Past Performance Questionnaire

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: SP3300-13-R-0008

The RFP has been issued to determine the best value for this procurement. The place of performance for contract start-up is at DLA Distribution Susquehanna and New Cumberland, PA and the customers for this contract are the approximately twenty-nine (29) Governments sites.

The Requirements covered under this acquisition include, but are not limited to: Wireless Network Support Services for on-site hardware, software, and technical support for approximately 29 Government sites to augment existing Government Wireless Network Support Personnel.

Questionnaire Instructions

The questionnaire covers the topics that are in line with the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARs). This questionnaire is designed to provide basic information regarding the Contractor’s past performance results on the contracts they have been awarded and your satisfaction with their performance. The format of the questionnaire follows a five-point scale with five being Exceptional and 1 being Unsatisfactory.

RATERS PLEASE NOTE:

Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a lower than Satisfactory rating solely for not performing beyond the requirement of the contract.

Please use the following guide in preparing your response to the below questions:

Dark Blue/Exceptional – RATING OF 5 Definition: 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 were highly effective.

NOTE: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Purple/Very Good – RATING OF 4 Definition: 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.

NOTE: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Green/Satisfactory – RATING OF 3 Definition: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were satisfactory.

NOTE: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Yellow/Marginal – RATING OF 2 Definition: 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.

NOTE: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g. management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Red/Unsatisfactory – RATING OF 1 Definition: 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.

NOTE: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

How would you rate this contractor past performance using the following number scale, please ensure that you use the definitions above when assigning a numerical rating. In addition, please provide a justification for rating given if above or below satisfactory. Please CIRCLE your response below each question based on the following scale:

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

Justification for Rating:

DELIVERY OR SCHEDULE:

COST CONTROL:

BUSINESS RELATIONS:

MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL:

UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS: (ONLY APPLICABLE TO LARGE BUSINESS CONTRACTORS)

ANY ADDITIONAL PERTINENT INFORMATION, i.e., SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, MAINTENANCE OF GFE, etc.:

Please provide a brief description of the services/supplies provided under the contract administered by your organization:

Given what you know today, would you recommend award of this contractor?

How would you rate this contractor’s past performance using the following number scale? In addition, please provide a justification for rating given if above or below mostly. Please CIRCLE your response below each question based on the following scale:

Meets Most Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs) and/or Contract Quality Standards

Justification:

Responds to Complaints in a Timely Manner

Disputes the Scope of the Requirement

Submits Reasonable Price Proposals on Contract Changes

Has Problems with Payroll, Paying for Supplies, or Subcontractors

Difficult When Negotiating Changes

Pro-actively Anticipates, Avoids or Mitigates Problems

Billing is Timely, Accurate and Complete

Please provide any additional information regarding this contractor’s performance, if applicable:

Evaluator: Company/Organization Name/Address

Evaluator’s Name: ______________________________________________________________

Evaluator’s Telephone Number: ___________________________________________________

Name of Company Evaluated: ___________________________________________________________