Attachment_0020_-_Past_Performance_Questionaire_(West).pdf

ATTACHMENT 0020

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

March 9, 2018

ACC-Redstone Aviation Maintenance Directorate

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W58RGZ-16-R-0271

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

The US Army Aviation and Missile Command is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate Offerors on subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we are requesting that Offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state or local government or commercial contracts as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 488190. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation.

Please complete the enclosure and return to the U.S. Army Contracting Command, ATTN: CCAM-AM-A (Mr. Larry Davis), Building 5303 Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5280, no later than 15 days after receipt of request or TBD, whichever occurs first. Your questionnaire may be submitted electronically to:

usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-afmii@mail.mil.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to Ms. Nicole Sullivan-Williams at (256) 876-4360.

Sincerely, Nicole Sullivan-Williams Contracting Officer Encl(1)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND – REDSTONE

BUILDING 5303 MARTIN ROAD

REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5000

mailto:usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-afmii@mail.mil

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

TO REFERENCE: (Enter name of reference entity the questionnaire is being sent to)

REFERENCE’S PHONE NUMBER:

REFERENCE’S EMAIL:

FROM REQUESTING FIRM:

(Name of Firm and contact information of the person requesting the accomplishment of the questionnaire.)

Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection. The U.S. Army Contracting Command Redstone (ACC- Redstone) is in the process of soliciting offers from companies capable of developing the AMCOM Aviation Field Maintenance Contract [Our firm] has provided your name and organization as a reference regarding our record of past performance under Contract No. [CONTRACT NO.].

Please complete this Questionnaire and forward a PDF copy to Mr. Larry E. Davis, (Contract Specialist), at usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-afmii@mail.mil.

[Our firm] is competing for Solicitation W58RGZ-16-R-0271 as a:

Prime Contractor

Subcontract to (please identify the Prime Contractor under which you will compete for the contract awards):

mailto:usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-afmii@mail.mil

When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.

SECTION I - TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR

1. CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS:

2. CONTRACT NO.:

3. CAGE CODE:

4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

5. COMPETITIVELY AWARDED (circle one) YES or NO

6. INITIAL CONTRACT VALUE (with options): $

7. CURRENT CONTRACT VALUE (with options): $

8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:

9. REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE (IF ANY) BETWEEN INITIAL CONTRACT VALUE AND CURRENT CONTRACT VALUE:

10. DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS:

Please add a continuation page if additional space necessary.

SECTION II - EVALUATION - TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE

11. CUSTOMER OR AGENCY NAME (AND

DESCRIPTION):

12. EVALUATOR’S NAME:

13. EVALUATOR’S TITLE:

14. EVALUATOR’S PHONE NUMBER:

15. EVALUATOR’S EMAIL ADDRESS:

16. NUMBER OF YEARS OR MONTHS EVALUATOR HAS

MONITORED CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE:

Please add a continuation page if additional space necessary.

INDIVIDUAL RATINGS EVALUATION:

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

O OUTSTANDING - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

G GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A ACCEPTABLE – Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

U UNACCEPTABLE – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

NA NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score as the question does not apply.

Technical Performance O G A M U NA

T1. Rate the contractor’s ability to execute the full scope of technical requirements detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW)

T2. Rate the contractor’s ability to alert Government of unforeseen schedule delays before they occur

T3. Rate the contractor’s compliance with technical and schedule requirements

T4. Rate the contractor’s flexibility and effectiveness in dealing with changes to technical requirements

T5. Rate the contractor’s ability to use innovation and resource-efficient solutions to satisfy requirements

T6. Rate the contractor’s technical performance and skills

T7. Rate the contractor’s ability to assess and re-assign staff based on technical performance

T8. Rate the contractor’s record in the mitigation of technical problems encountered

T9. Rate the contractor’s record in accomplishing task objectives without constant direct oversight by the Government

T10. Rate the contractor’s ability to accurately estimate technical work requirements for new work

T11 Rate the contractor’s ability to manage technical performance within ceiling price

T10. This contract included support in the following technical areas and work was performed in CONUS: (Check all that apply.)

Unit level rotorcraft maintenance

Reset

Port and Strat-Air operations

Back shop support (Examples: engine shop, paint shop, prop, rotor shop etc.)

Non-Destructive Inspection

Modifications Work Orders (MWO) applications

Depot level repairs

Scheduled / unscheduled services

Supply Support Activities (SSA)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

Aviation Ground Support Equipment (AGSE)

T11. This contract included support in the following technical areas and work was performed in OCONUS: (Check all that apply.)

Unit level rotorcraft maintenance

Reset

Port and Strat-Air operations

Back shop support (Examples: engine shop, paint shop, prop, rotor shop etc.)

Non-Destructive Inspection

Modifications Work Orders (MWO) applications

Depot level repairs

Scheduled / unscheduled services

Supply Support Activities (SSA)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

Aviation Ground Support Equipment (AGSE)

T12. Ground and flight operations experience in this contract were governed under: (Check all that apply.)

DCMA INST 8210.1C

AFI 10-220_IP

AR 95-20

NAVAIRINST 3710.1G

COMDTINST M13020.3A

DCMA-AO

T13. Type of aircraft work was performed on: (Check all that apply.)

Coast Guard

US Navy

US Air Force

US Army

Foreign Military Sales (FMS)

Commercial

Other (please specify)

T14. Mission Design Series work performed on: (Check all that apply.)

H-60

AH-64

OH-58

H-47

H-72

UAS (please specify)

Fixed Wing (please specify)

Other (please specify)

T15. Number of CONUS maintenance sites/locations the contractor manage concurrently: (select one)

Only one site

2 to 3 sites

4-5 sites

6 sites

Greater than 6

NA

T16. Number of OCONUS maintenance sites/locations the contractor manage concurrently: (select one)

Only one site

2 to 3 sites

4-5 sites

6 sites

Greater than 6

NA

Quality Management O G A M U NA

Q1. Rate the contractor’s overall Quality Management System

Q2. Rate the contractor’s implementation of best practices and lessons learned

Q3. Rate the contractor’s execution of proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

Q4. Rate contractor’s implementation of AS9110 processes to improve quality management and timeliness

Q5. Rate the contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality

Q6. Rate the contractor’s first pass yield at final quality of product or service provided

Q7. Rate the contractor’s responsiveness to nonconforming product

Q8. Rate the contractor’s resolution of nonconforming product

Management Capability O G A M U NA

M1. Rate the overall effectiveness of contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

M2. Rate contractor’s effectiveness interacting with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

M3. Rate the contractor’s timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

M4. Rate the contractor’s ability to understand/comply with customer objectives and technical requirements

M5. Rate the contractor’s ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

M6. Rate the contractor’s overall effectiveness of material management (including Government Furnished Property, Information, or Material)

M7. Rate the contractor’s overall ability to successfully managed an integrated team inclusive of subcontractors/teammates

M8. Rate the contractor’s execution of their management plan to meet customer’s requirements that resulted in efficient, effective and adaptable program planning and execution

M9. Rate the contractor’s overall ability to recruit and retain key personnel , staff and subcontractors with sufficient qualifications and experience

Transition In/Transition Out O G A M U NA

TT1. Rate the contractor’s overall execution of the Transition - In Plan

TT2. Rate the contractor’s overall execution of the Transition - Out Plan

Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation O G A M U NA

S1. Rate the contractor’s ability to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan

S2. Rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage small business participation to meet technical performance and requirements

Cost/Price Performance O G A M U NA

C1. Rate the contractor’s accuracy in forecasting contract costs

C2. Rate the contractor’s demonstrated ability to meet forecasted costs and perform within contract ceiling price

C3. Rate the contractor’s demonstrated ability to alert Government of unforeseen costs before they occur

C4. Rate the contractor’s cost reporting timeliness and accuracy

C5. Rate the contractor’s timeliness of the cost estimates

C6. Rate the contractor’s cost reporting accuracy and their need to revise previously reported costs

C7. Rate the contractor’s ability to process vouchers accurately and within a reasonable timeframe

Overall Acceptance Rating O G A M U NA

O1. Overall Acceptance Rating of the Contractor

Please discuss each response for which you indicated O (Outstanding), M (Marginal) or U (Unacceptable) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

Have any of the identified unacceptable ratings been shared with the contractor?

( ) Yes: written or oral? ( ) No

Government Contracts ONLY: Has/was this contract partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes___ Default___ Convenience___ Pending Terminations___ No ___

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules).

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this Contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

( ) Yes ( ) No