Att_9_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_SOFAST-E_II_W900KK-20-R-0013.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- w900kk-20-r-0013
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and federal contract opportunity synopsis. The past performance questionnaire requests information about a contractor's performance on prior contracts and includes rating scales to evaluate quality, cost control, schedule, business relationships, program management, and customer satisfaction. The federal contract opportunity synopsis provides details for a Special Operations Forces Aviation Systems Trainers - Enhancements II procurement. It specifies a small business set-aside competitive request for proposal with an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract and 8-year ordering period for simulator, simulation, and mission rehearsal support for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The total maximum contract value is $218 million. The response date for proposals is December 16, 2019 and anticipated award date is September 27, 2020.
Attachment 9 Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOLICITATION W900KK-20-R-0013
Submit completed past performance questionnaire by 4:00 PM Eastern, December 16, 2019 to: Jason Holden (Contract Specialist) jason.n.holden.civ@mail.mil and Duane St. Peter, Contracting Officer duane.a.stpeter.civ@mail.mil
The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary).
Part I
(1) Name of Contractor questionnaire is being completed for:
(2) Contract Number:
(3) Role Contractor played in Prior Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(4) Proposed Role in Pending Contract
Prime
Joint Venture Team Member
Subcontractor
(5) Award Date/Period of Performance:
(6) Contract type:
(7) Contract value:
(8) Description of service or product:
Part II
(9) Is Performance on this contract being reported in CPARS
No, skip to question 10 and complete Part III of the questionnaire
Yes, answer questions (i)-(iv) below. Part III is not applicable.
(i) Has the scope of work significantly changed since the last CPAR?
No
Yes, provide details in (iv) below
(ii) Have there been any significant changes in contractor performance between the last CPAR and now?
No
Yes, answer question (iii) below
(iii) Has an out-of-cycle CPAR been initiated to document changes in performance?
No, provide details of changes in (iv) below
Yes
(iv) Comments to support answers to questions (i), (ii) and (iii):
(10) Name of agency/company completing questionnaire:
(11) Name of person completing questionnaire:
(12) Email address of person completing questionnaire:
(13) Title of person completing questionnaire:
(14) Phone number of person completing questionnaire:
(15) Date questionnaire is being completed:
RATING SCALE: Please use the following ratings to answer the questions on page 2.
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| 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. |
| Very Good |
| 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 were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| 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. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Neutral |
| No record exists. |
| N/A |
| (Not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation |
NOTE: For statements indicating “Outstanding”, Marginal, and “Unsatisfactory”, please provide a brief explanation in the comments section of the survey.
Part III
| CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR PRODUCT/SERVICES |
| N/A |
| Neutral |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
a.) QUALITY OF PRODUCT/SERVICE:
(1) The Contractor provided a product or service that conformed to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate reports.
(3) The Contractor utilized personnel that were appropriate to the effort performed.
b.) COST CONTROL:
(1) The Contractor performed the effort within the estimated cost/price.
(2) The Contractor submitted accurate vouchers/invoices on a timely basis.
(3) The Contractor demonstrated cost efficiencies in performing the required effort.
(4) The actual costs/rates realized closely reflected the negotiated costs/rates.
c.) SCHEDULE:
(1) The product(s)/task(s) required under this effort were delivered/performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the delivery dates/period of performance of the contract.
(2) The Contractor was responsive to technical and/or contractual direction.
d.) BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS:
(1) The Contractor maintained an open line of communication so that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) were apprised of technical, cost, and schedule issues.
(2) The Contractor presented information and correspondence in a clear, concise, and businesslike manner.
(3) The Contractor promptly notified the COR, TPOC, and/or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent issues.
(4) The Contractor cooperated with the Government in providing flexible, proactive, and effective recommended solutions to critical program issues.
e.) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
(1) The Contractor demonstrated effective program management over the effort performed.
(2) The Contractor effectively and efficiently identified and applied resources to meet schedule requirements.
(3) The contractor made timely award to, and demonstrated effective management of, its subcontractors.
(4) The contractor demonstrated ability to resolve technical and/or manufacturing problems quickly and effectively.
f.) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
(1) The product/services provided adequately met the needs of the program.
(2) The Contractor was able to perform with minimal or no direction from the COR or the TPOC.
(3) I am satisfied with the performance of the Contractor under this effort.
COMMENTS: [Add comments as necessary to convey additional past perfromance details]
COMMENTS: (continued)
2 Attachment 9
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .