12a - PAST PERFOMANCE EVALUATION.pdf
PDF 167 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ASBESTOS ABATEMENT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 30391PR240000005
About this file
This solicitation is for asbestos abatement services. The Coast Guard is seeking quotes for asbestos removal per the statement of work. Quotes are due by email to Sonya Huston by April 30, 2024 and must include a breakdown of estimated materials, labor hours, number of workers, and pricing. The acquisition is set aside for small businesses under NAICS code 562910 with a size standard of 500 employees. The contract type will be firm fixed price and the award will be made to the responsible contractor with the most advantageous quote based on price and other factors. Invoicing will be through the Invoice Processing Platform system.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 12a - SF 30 - AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION.pdf | ||
| 12a - RFI VENDOR QUESTION AND ANSWER.docx | DOCX document | |
| 12a - SITE VISIT INFORMATION.pdf | ||
| 12a - FAR MATRIX - SERVICE.pdf | ||
| 3c - STATEMENT OF WORK.pdf | ||
| 7m - WAGE DETERMINATION.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
U.S. COAST GUARD
BASE CLEVELAND, PROCUREMENT & CONTRACTING
BRANCH CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
The U. S. Coast Guard, Base Cleveland, Procurement & Contracting has a requirement for USCG Station Kenosha asbestos abatement. As a result, we are performing a survey and reference investigation on possible contractors for the upcoming contract.
The information contained herein is considered “Source Selection Information” in accordance with FAR 3.104. Therefore, it is asked that you treat it accordingly. While the results of the overall past performance survey may be discussed with the contractor, FAR Part 15.610 and 15.1004 prohibits the release of the name of the individual responding to the survey.
Responses to this questionnaire should be emailed to Sonya Huston at Sonya.J.Huston@uscg.mil
Should you have any questions concerning this survey, please contact the above named person at
(414) 747-7093
I. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION: (Fill-in)
NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING RATED: _______________________________________________
CONTRACT NUMBER: _______________________________________________
CONTRACT TYPE: _______________________________________________
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: _______________________________________________
TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED: _______________________________________________
RESPONDENT’S NAME: PHONE: _______________________________________________
E-Mail FAX: _______________________________________________
RESPONDENT’S COMPANY NAME: _______________________________________________
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION
SEE FAR 3.104
II. GENERAL GUIDANCE:
The following questions are divided into two types: YES/NO and RATING. When responding to the RATING type questions, choose the number on the scale of 1 to 3, which most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. Responses to the RATING type questions may be supplemented with an explanatory narrative as well. The numbers 1 to 3 correspond with the following descriptive values: Please assign an overall rating for each section where indicated.
Please rate the contractor on a graduated scale from 1 to 3 in accordance with the following descriptive values:
• Excellent (1) - Meets contractual requirements and significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government’s benefit.
• Satisfactory (2) – Meets contractual requirements.
• Unsatisfactory (3) – Does not meet contractual requirement and is not in the best interest of the
Government.
• IF AN ELEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO YOUR SERVICES, PLEASE RATE AS N/A.
A. QUALITY OF SERVICE: RATING
1. The contractor’s level of effort regarding asbestos abatement met your requirements 1 2 3 N/A
2. The contractor’s initiative at correcting problems or deficiencies prior to Government intervention 1 2 3 N/A
3. The contractor’s response to emergencies 1 2 3 N/A
4. Contractor’s overall quality of service 1 2 3 N/A
5. Has a contract discrepancy report (or equivalent) ever been issued?
YES NO
6. Has an election ever been made to not exercise an option due to contractor’s poor performance?
YES NO
7. OVERALL RATING FOR QUALITY OF SERVICES 1 2 3 N/A
COMMENTS:
B. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: RATING
1. Rating for customer satisfaction 1 2 3 N/A
2. Ability of the contractor to meet the terms of the contract 1 2 3 N/A
3. OVERALL RATING FOR CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 1 2 3 N/A
C. MANAGEMENT/LABOR: RATING
1. Performance of on-site management staff. 1 2 3 N/A
2. Performance of labor force. 1 2 3 N/A
3. Corporate management’s support of contract performance. 1 2 3 N/A
4. Have there been any labor disputes or violations of the Service Contract Act? YES NO
5. OVERALL RATING FOR MANAGEMENT/LABOR YES NO
D. GENERAL/BUSINESS RELATIONS: RATING
1. Contractor’s preparation and training of personnel. 1 2 3 N/A
2. Contractor’s compliance with contractual terms and conditions. 1 2 3 N/A
3. Contractor’s ability to meet the terms of the contract within the contractually agreed price.
1 2 3 N/A
4. Contractor’s overall cooperation relative to this contract 1 2 3 N/A
5. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems?
YES NO
6. Have there been any disputes/claims relative to this contract? YES NO
7. Willingness to award another contract to this contractor. 1 2 3 N/A
8. OVERALL RATING FOR GENERAL/BUSINESS RELATIONS 1 2 3 N/A
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON ANY RATING ELEMENT CAN BE MADE BELOW:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .