Attachment 8 Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GAOA Brainard Lake Rec Area Deferred Maintenance
- Solicitation number
- 1240LT24R0059
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire that requests information on a contractor's past and present performance. The questionnaire covers various aspects of the contractor's performance, including their ability to provide adequate staffing and equipment, quality control procedures, problem-solving skills, timeliness of performance, customer satisfaction, and environmental awareness. The respondent is asked to rate the contractor's performance on a scale from "Exceptional/High Confidence" to "Unsatisfactory/No Confidence" and provide comments. The questionnaire also inquires about any Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, Letters of Concern, or instances of withheld payment the contractor may have received. Finally, the respondent is asked whether they would hire the contractor again.
The related federal contract opportunity is for the GAOA Brainard Lake Rec Area Deferred Maintenance project, located in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, Indian Peak Wilderness Area on the Boulder Range District. The project magnitude is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, and the solicitation is being set aside 100% for small businesses. All questions are due no later than August 23, 2024, at 12:00MT. The contracting agency is the Department of Agriculture Forest Service R2-Rocky Mountain Region.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 1 1240LT24R0059.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7 Project Map.jpg | JPG image | |
| Attachment 4 Specifications.pdf | ||
| 1240LT24R0059 Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 Drawings.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 FSSS.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Schedule of Items.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Statement of Work.pdf |
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
Questionnaire on Contractor’s Present and Past Performance
Request you provide the following information on the contractor’s present and past performance by placing an X in the space provided by the most appropriate response. If you wish to elaborate on your answer, please provide comments on the lines provided after each question. If more space is needed, continue your comments on a separate sheet of paper and attach it to this questionnaire. You are asked to provide frank, concise comments regarding your overall assessment of the contractor’s performance on the contract identified. You are urged to supplement your own knowledge of the contractor’s performance with the judgment of others in your organization. The following definitions are applicable rating levels of the contractor’s performance on the identified program.
Performance Confidence Assessment
Exceptional/High Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Very Good/Significant Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory/Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral/Unknown Confidence: No performance record identifiable.
Marginal/Little Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.
Unsatisfactory/No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Individual’ Name, Title, and Phone Number Completing Questionnaire:
Company’s Name: _______________________________________________________ Contractor’s Name:
Contract Number:
Contract Title:
Period of Performance (Including Options):
Contract Amount (Including Options):
MANAGEMENT
1. Rate the contractor on their ability to provide adequate manning and equipment to respond to surge requirements, contingencies, emergencies, and weather delays without falling behind the regular schedule.
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments:
I have worked with Daniel’s on numerous large culvert and small bridge projects (up to 35’). They have always demonstrated a high level of knowledge of the work they are performing, adequate staffing, and appropriate equipment.
QUALITY OF SERVICE
2. Rate the contractor on their ability to provide effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements and their ability to take appropriate action to take to correct deficiencies when identified. (Does the contractor conform with the Government accepted quality control plan? Does the contractor provide effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contractual requirements?)
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
Our experience has been that Daniel’s provides a high level of quality and knowledge in the work they perform.
3. Rate the contractor’s ability to proactively recognize and resolve unanticipated difficulties. (Does contractor display initiative to solve problems? Does contractor identify risks/problems as they occur?)
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments:
TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
4. Rate the contractor on their ability to provide a sufficient number of qualified personnel to ensure all contract requirements were successfully completed in an expedient manner. (Does contractor demonstrate ability to hire, maintain, and replace if necessary, qualified personnel during the contract period?)
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments:
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
5. Rate the working relationship between the contractor and your company and your designated representatives.
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments:
6. Rate the contractor on their environmental awareness. (Includes environmental compliance and environmental initiatives, such as affirmative procurement)
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Neutral
Marginal Unsatisfactory
[X]
Comments:
7. Has the contractor ever been given a Cure Notice, Show Cause Notice, Letter of Concerns, or had payment withheld for services not rendered?
Number of Cure Notices:
Number of Show Cause Notices:
Number of Letter of Concerns:
Number of time payment withheld for services not rendered:
SUMMARY
8. Would you hire this contractor again? Highly Likely Likely
Unlikely
Highly Unlikely
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .