The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
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:
| Point of Contact |
| Name, Email, Phone |
II. CONTRACT INFORMATION:
| 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 |
| Brief description of the contract and work effort: |
| Scope of Work Description |
III. REFERENCE:
| Organization |
| Agency or Company |
| Phone Number |
| XXX-XXX-XXXX |
IV. EVALUATION:
| 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. |
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
| Name |
| Timothy Burger / Bruce Beck |
| Title |
| Contracting Officer / Contract Specialist |
| Organization |
| National Park Service – Denver Service Center |
| Email |
| timothy_burger@ios.doi.gov / bruce_beck@ios.doi.gov |
