B09_Att_15_PPQ_(rev)_0001.docx

DOCX document 46 KB Posted

Attached to
GRCA 250440 Shuttle Bus Facility Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2024R0028
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service National Office

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire, which is intended to be used as a source selection tool for a federal contract opportunity. The questionnaire requests information from a reference about the past performance of a contractor, including ratings and comments on the contractor's quality of work, schedule and time management, cost control, management, small business subcontracting and labor standards, and regulatory compliance. The reference is asked to provide an overall recommendation for the contractor for similar contracts.

The related federal contract opportunity is for the GRCA 250440 Shuttle Bus Facility, solicitation number 140P2024R0028, issued by the Department of the Interior National Park Service National Office. The contract is for an unspecified contract type, with a current/final price of $X,XXX,XXX and a period of performance from XX/XX/XXX to XX/XX/XXX. The questionnaire is to be returned by May 6, 2024, 5:00 pm MT.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 23

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: Offeror to complete Sections I and II and transmit questionnaire to reference.

Reference to complete Sections III and IV and transmit back to Contract Specialist listed in section V.

Information provided in this questionnaire is intended for use as source selection information and as such is deemed Source Selection Sensitive. Statements or comments provided in the questionnaire do not signify an express or implied endorsement of any product, supply, service, or enterprise.

This information shall not be construed as an endorsement by the Government or its employee(s) of the contractor for advertising purposes or in a manner that implies the contractor, its products, or services, are approved, endorsed, or considered by the Government to be superior to other products or services.

The contractor shall not be permitted to use any information provided in this questionnaire to publicize, or otherwise circulate, promotional materials that state or imply Governmental, organizational, group, expert, or individual endorsement or consumer testimonial of a product, service, or position which the contractor represents.

I. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:

Company Name
Company
Street Address
Address
City
City
State
State
Zip Code
XXXXX
DUNS Number
XXXXXXX
Point of Contact
Name, Email, Phone

II. CONTRACT INFORMATION:

Project Title
Title
Contract Number
XXXXXXXXXX
Contract Type
Firm Fixed Price / Time and Materials / Cost Reimbursable / Other
Awarded Contract Price
$X,XXX,XXX
Current / Final Price
$X,XXX,XXX
Contract Award Date
XX/XX/XXXX
Contract Completion Date
XX/XX/XXXX
Period of Performance
XX/XX/XXX – XX/XX/XXX
Project Location
Park or Street Address, City, State
Client / Owner
Company
Brief description of the contract and work effort:
Scope of Work Description

III. REFERENCE:

Name
First, Last
Position / Title
Title
Organization
Agency or Company
Phone Number
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Email Address
Email
Signature
Signature
Date
XX/XX/XXXX

IV. EVALUATION:

Rating
Definition
Satisfactory Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has little or no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Confidence
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
Evaluation Area
Rating

Quality

Quality of workmanship (including subconsultants)?
Choose an item.
Quality of and adherence to quality control plan?
Choose an item.
Quality of informational and technical submittals?
Choose an item.
Overall Quality Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Schedule and Time Management

Met project schedule milestones?
Choose an item.
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner?
Choose an item.
Informational and technical deliverables submitted timely?
Choose an item.
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Choose an item.
Overall Schedule and Time Management Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Cost Control

Addressed design errors and omissions to minimize additional costs?
Choose an item.
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Choose an item.
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Choose an item.
Promptly paid subconsultants?
Choose an item.
Overall Cost Control Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Management

General oversight by project manager?
Choose an item.
Coordination with and control of subconsultants?
Choose an item.
Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)?
Choose an item.
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives?
Choose an item.
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Choose an item.
Overall Management Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Small Business Subcontracting and Labor Standards

Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Choose an item.
Successfully contracted with small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses?
Choose an item.
Quality and adherence to applicable subcontracting plans?
Choose an item.
Overall Small Business Subcontracting and Labor Standards Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of exceptional, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Regulatory Compliance

Met building, safety codes, etc.?
Choose an item.
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating
Choose an item.
Overall Recommendation:
Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar contracts:
Choose an item.
Overall Comments:

V. RETURN:

Return by
May 6, 2024, 5:00 pm MT
Name
Brenda Smith
Title
Contract Specialist
Organization
National Park Service
Email
brenda_smith@nps.gov

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .