Attachment_3_-_Corpus_PPQ.pdf

SP3300-14-R-0002

Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire

Past Performance Questionnaire

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: SP3300-14-R-0002

The RFP has been issued to determine the most efficient and cost effective provider for this procurement. The customer for this contract is the DLA Information Operations New Cumberland, PA sited at Corpus Christi, TX.

A. The Requirements covered under this acquisition include, but are not limited to: ensuring that all IT equipment, to include network hardware, server hardware, workstations, printers, portable computers, network infrastructure (cabling), and miscellaneous IT equipment, is functioning at all times to support mission requirements. IT support services shall be provided to users when working at their primary duty location, when working from an alternate site, and/or when working in a temporary duty (TDY) status away from primary duty location.

PART I (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. RELEVANT PREVIOUS CONTRACT -- IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Contract Place of Performance (Address):

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if this was a subcontract effort):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

Awarded Contract Price/Cost:

Final Contract Price/Cost:

B. OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT FOR RESPONDENT QUESTIONS

Name:

Title:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

E-mail Address:

C. DATE SENT TO RESPONDENT: ________________

PART II – EVALUATION (To be completed by Respondent)

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

IAW FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ___________________________________________________________

B. Contract number: ______________________

C. Contract type: ______________________________

D. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

E. Period of performance: ___________________

F. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

G. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

H. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

I. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other

Commands:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name and title:

B. Evaluator's phone/fax number: _________________________________________________________

C. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

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.

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:

Exceptional 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.

Very Good 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.

Satisfactory 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.

Marginal 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).

Unsatisfactory 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 scale, please ensure that you use the definitions above when assigning a rating. In addition, please provide a justification for any rating given if above or below satisfactory. Please provide a response for each question below.

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE:

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Justification for Rating:

DELIVERY OR SCHEDULE:

COST CONTROL:

BUSINESS RELATIONS:

MANAGEMENT OF PERSONNEL:

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

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

Always Almost Always Mostly Seldom Never

Responds to Complaints in a Timely Manner

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:

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

YES NO

Evaluator’s signature and date:

Past Performance Questionnaire