B08_Burnside_Bridge_Walkway.doc
DOC document 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Burnside Bridge Walkway Construction Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P3018R0002
About this file
Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| B12_Solicitation_Q&A_Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| 140P3018R0002_w_clauses.pdf | ||
| Final_Specifications_(1).pdf | ||
| Submittal_Log.pdf | ||
| B08_Solicitation_Clauses_(revised).docx | DOCX document | |
| Final_Plans_06062017_(1).pdf | ||
| rnside_Contract_Price_Schedule_5-24-17_-_Blank.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P3018R0002.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
RFP NO. 140P3018R0002
CUSTOMER RATING QUESTIONNAIRE
Reference is provided for: _____________________
Please provide information for the primary individuals completing this survey.
Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Office Identifier: _____________________________________________________________
Telephone Number: __________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________
E-Mail Address: ______________________________________________________________
Contract # and Title, and Relation to Contract: ______________________________________
THE QUESTIONNAIRE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS:
Return via e-mail to Daniel_Jackson@nps.gov.
Forms may be mailed to the National Park Service, ATTN: Daniel Jackson, 1100 Ohio Dr SW, Washington, DC 20242.
RATING DESCRIPTIONS: Use the following descriptions as guidance in providing ratings.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| Exceptional (1) |
| Indicates the contractor’s performance record within the area of evaluation Exceeded that required by the contract. |
| Very Good (2) |
| Indicates the contractor’s performance record within the area of evaluation Met All contractual requirements. |
| Satisfactory (3) |
| Indicates the contractor’s performance record within the area of evaluation Met Essentially All contractual requirements. |
| Marginal (4) |
| Indicates the contractor’s performance record within the area of evaluation Met Some of the contractual requirements. However, changes to the contractor’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. |
| Unsatisfactory (5) |
| Indicates the contractor’s performance record within the area of evaluation Failed to Meet the minimum Government requirements. |
| Unknown or Not Applicable (6) |
| The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation. |
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| (1) Did the contractor demonstrate an ability to execute a large number of multiple discipline orders in a highly compressed time frame? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (2) How responsive was the contractor’s quality program in identifying, correcting, and preventing initial and recurring contract discrepancies? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (3) How complete were the contractor’s quality procedures and how well do employees follow them? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (4) How well did the contractor mange project, in terms of timely material delivery, accurate and timely submission of submittals, timely payment of subcontracts, and general business practices? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (5) Did the contractor accurately and timely provide status to Government via progress schedule/critical path charts, etc? Did the contractor provide timely notices of delays/schedule revisions? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (6) Rate timeliness in meeting requirements and adhering to contract schedules (delivery/performance), taking into account all excusable delays including cooperation and attention to contract completion efforts. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (7) Did the contractor provide adequate, competent and qualified, management, key personnel and technical personnel capable of meeting contract requirements throughout the performance period of the contract? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (8) How well did the contractor work independent of Government guidance, oversight and assistance? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (9) How would you rate your contractor’s business practices, customer relationship, and ability to successfully perform? Did the contractor demonstrate a reasonable and cooperative business relationship with the Government’s Contract Management personnel? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (10) How effective was the contractor in meeting Cost/Price performance targets and controlling contingencies (i.e. changes, etc.)? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (11) Rate the contractor’s ability to manage subcontractors and explain any subcontracting issues (positive or negative) that impacted the performance of your contract. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (12) Rate the adequacy of the contractor’s environmental program, oversight, compliance, and management. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (13) Adequacy of Submittals. Were submittals well researched and clearly identified the proposed item? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
(14) How flexible, cooperative, and reasonable was the contractor in meeting mission
Requirements, particularly when faced with short-notice mission changes?
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (15) Was the Site Manager consistently present on site when work was performed? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
(16) How timely and effective were the contractor’s responses to and resolution of technical problems? Did the Site Manager have sufficient authority to make decisions or take actions during project performance?
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (17) How effective was the contractor’s safety program to ensure compliance with federal, state and local regulations? Did the contractor implement and follow their safety plan? Did they run a “safe” jobsite? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (18) Applicable to Federal Contracts – How well did the contractor comply with applicable Federal Laws and Regulations such as Davis Bacon Act – timely payrolls and compliance; Drug-Free Workplace; Environmental Regulations and Use of Recovered Materials; Executive Order 13101? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (19) How well did the contractor comply with Utilization of Small Business Concerns requirements? For Large Businesses: Were Small Business goals met in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (20) How innovative was the contractor in performing the technical aspects of this contract and resolving problems? How well did the contractor respond to and act on customer feedback? (Customer Satisfaction) |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
| (21) How would you rate the Contractor’s overall performance? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
REMARKS:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________(22) What were the contractor’s top documented strengths, if any, in performing the contract requirements? REMARKS:
(23) What were the contractor’s top documented weaknesses, if any, in performing the contract requirements? REMARKS:
(24) Please Provide Any Additional Information You Feel Is Important Not Covered Elsewhere:
Thank you for your remarks. Be sure to return to the Contracting Agency and not to the Contractor referenced with the Reference ID Form you were provided.
Signature:____________________________________ Date Completed:________________________
File details come from the government source that posted it.