Attachment_2_-Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 63 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140R2018R0031
About this file
This is a questionnaire document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment_1_-_Map_of_Area.pdf | ||
| Attacment_3_-_Wage_Determination.pdf | ||
| Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_140R2018R0031.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
Solicitation: 140R2018R0031 Attachment 2 – Past Performance Questionnaire
When Completed, This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive
Information In Accordance With FAR 3.104
Instructions:
Sections I and II are to be completed by the Customer/Agency, and provided to your reference(s). The reference(s), in turn, are to verify Section II, complete Sections III, IV, and V of the questionnaire. The completed questionnaire should be submitted directly to the point of contact listed below, by the closing date of the solicitation.
Message to the assessor: Your feedback is requested by Reclamation to assist with establishing the performance history for the Contractor named below in Section I. In an effort to expedite the receipt of the requested information, the Contracting Office respectfully requests that you do not mail hard copies. Instead, please email the completed questionnaire(s) to: kfleming@usbr.gov.
I. Solicitation Data
| Solicitation No. |
| 140R2018R0031 |
| Solicitation Title/Name |
| Purchase and Delivery of Fuels – Lake Berryessa Field Office |
Customer/Agency
| Contracting Role |
| (Prime ( Subcontractor ( Key Personnel ( Teaming/Joint Venture |
II. Current or Historical Contract Information Contractor Name
Contractor Address
Contract Number
Project Description
Type of Contract
| Contract Value |
| Initial: Final: |
| Contracting Role |
| (Prime ( Subcontractor ( Key Personnel ( Teaming/Joint Venture |
III. Reference Information Reference Name and Title
Organization Name and Address
Phone
IV. Evaluation Definitions
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| No Confidence |
| Little Confidence |
| Unknown Confidence |
| Satisfactory Confidence |
| Significant Confidence |
| High Confidence |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective. |
| The record is inconclusive or without comment or the contractor did not perform this effort. |
| Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some requirements. There were a few minor problems which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner. |
| Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many requirements. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner. |
V. Performance Evaluation
Choose the number on the scale of 1 to 5 that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. If there was not performance on the project that can be rated use “Not Applicable (N/A)”. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF 1 OR 2.
Technical Expertise and Project Supervision
| 1 |
| Contractor provided experienced technical and administrative personnel with the abilities needed to meet contract requirements. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 2 |
| Contractor hired, retained and promptly replaced employees with appropriate technical skills (i.e. IT, Engineering, Administrative, etc.) and training commensurate with those required for successful project completion. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Home Office/On-Site/Government Interaction
| 3 |
| Identified risks/problems as they occurred and offered constructive and/or viable solutions/alternatives. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 4 |
| Contractor was responsive and reasonable to contract changes from the standpoint of timeliness, suggested solutions and price. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 5 |
| Contractor displayed a cooperative attitude with company/government personnel before and after award. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| Contractor’s on-site supervisor displayed imitative to resolve problems on-site. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 7 |
| Were there any claims by subcontractors/suppliers for non-payment? If yes, please explain outcome in “Remarks”. |
| Yes |
| No |
Product Quality
| 8 |
| Contractor’s emphasis on delivering a quality product was apparent in day-to-day operations. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 9 |
| Contractor corrected deficiencies in a timely manner. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 10 |
| Contractor maintained a quality workforce and subcontractors, if applicable, through project completion. |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Other
| 11 |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “Remarks”. |
| Yes |
| No |
| 12 |
| Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “Remarks”. |
| Yes |
| No |
Overall Assessment
| 13 |
| Overall, on the scale of 1-5, how would you rate the contractor being surveyed? |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| N |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Remarks:
Please attach additional pages if necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it.