Attachment4-PastPerformanceQuestionnaire-Word.docx

MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCoE) Fort Benning, GA MCoE-Past Performance Questionnaire W911S0-17-R-0007

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

1. Contractor: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. Cage Code: _________________________________

1. Contract number: _______________________________________

1. Contract type: ______________________________

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

1. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________

1. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

1. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

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

1. Description of service provided: ______________________________________________________________

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

1. Customer or agency name: _______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Customer or agency description (if applicable): _______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

1. Evaluator's name: ______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Evaluator's title: ______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Evaluator's phone/fax number: ______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract:

SECTION 4: 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

S SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

US UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NA NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score.

The questions shown below should be tailored to the Factors/Subfactors of the instant acquisition.

T1. Quality & repeatability of operations & maintenance.

T2. Quality of technical system testing and certification efforts

T3. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts

T4. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements

T5. Ability to implement current standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control

T6. Ability to implement current standard practices for computer software design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control

T7. Adequacy/effectiveness of environmental safety procedures

P1. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

P2. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes)

P3. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

P4. Understand/complied with customer objectives and technical requirements

P5. Successfully responded to emergency and/or surge situations

P6. Quality/effectiveness of sub-contracted efforts

P7. Effectiveness of material management (including Government Furnished Property or Material)

P8. Effectiveness of acquisition management

P9. Contractor proposed alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the customer

P10. Contractor implemented responsive/flexible processes to improve quality and timeliness of support.

T1. Contractor ability to smoothly transition resources and personnel.

T2. Contractor effectiveness on maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel to support other efforts.

E1. Ability to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort.

E2. Ability to retain a qualified workforce on this effort.

E3. Effectiveness of employee compensation towards quality of work.

S1. Ability to meet or exceed small business and small disadvantaged business goals set forth in the approved subcontracting plan

S2. Ability to effectively manage small business participation to meet technical performance.

1. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated M (Marginal) or US (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

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

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

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

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

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature Date Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire via email to:

Mailing Address:

Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) – Fort Eustis ATTN: Gina Dedmon and Bethany Rosser Solicitation No.: W911S0-17-R-0007 705 Washington Blvd, Suite 126 (West Wing) Fort Eustis, VA 23604 Email: gina.d.dedmon.civ@mail.mil bethany.r.rosser.civ@mail.mil

MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCoE) Fort Benning, GA MCoE-Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets W911S0-17-R-0007

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet

The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

1. Contract Number, Award Date and Contract type.

2. Price/Cost – original awarded AND final (or projected final, if contract is current).

3. Delivery Schedule – original AND final (or projected final, if the contract is current).

4. Contact Information - Address and telephone number for the Government (or commercial) procuring contracting activity AND contract administrative activity (if applicable).

Name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address for the following:

5. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

6. Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

7. Government or commercial technical representative or COR Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how you consider that effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation. In determining relevancy, consideration should be given but not limited to such things as product/service similarity, product/service, size and complexity, contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction.

8. Narrative explanation on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved and the following data: any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or a No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence candidate.

8. Narrative explanation on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved and the following data: any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or a No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence candidate.

8. Narrative explanation on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved and the following data: any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or a No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence candidate.

8. Narrative explanation on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved and the following data: any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or a No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence candidate.

8. Narrative explanation on each contract listed describing the objectives achieved and the following data: any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts which did not/do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or a No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence candidate.

9. Negative Performance Documentation. A copy of any cure notices, show cause letters or contract discrepancy reports received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor.

10. Completion Date/Delivery Schedule. The contractor shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary.

1.

Contract Number __________________________ Award Date________________________________ Contract type_______________________________

2. Price/Cost – original awarded price__________________________________________

3. Delivery Schedule.

Original completion/delivery date ______________________________________________ Revised completion/delivery date ______________________________________________

4. Contact Information - Address and telephone number for the Government (or commercial) procuring contracting activity AND contract administrative activity (if applicable). Name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address for the following:

5. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).

Address: _____________________________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________ Fax Number: _________________________________________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________________________________________

6. Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

Address: _____________________________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________ Fax Number: _________________________________________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________________________________________

7. Government or commercial technical representative or COR.

Address: ____________________________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________ Fax Number: _________________________________________________________ E-Mail Address: _______________________________________________________

8. Narrative explanation.__________________________________________________

8. Narrative explanation.__________________________________________________

9. Negative Performance Documentation.______________________________________

10. Completion Date or Delivery Schedule – original AND final (or projected final, if the contract is current). _______________________________________________________

MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCoE) Fort Benning, GA MCoE-Past Performance Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter W911S0-17-R-0007

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT FORM FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor's or teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government's Past Performance Evaluators in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent form be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume III Proposal.

SAMPLE

Dear (Contracting Officer)

We are currently participating as a (subcontractor/teaming partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Mission and Installation Contracting Command request for Proposal (solicitation number) for the (program title or description of effort).

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and Title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104