23_191BWC21R0004 Past Performance Questionnaire (Phase 2).docx
DOCX document 100 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Design Build - Edinburg Pump Station
- Solicitation number
- 191BWC21R0004
About this file
This document package contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal solicitation. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by previous clients and reviewers of an offeror for a design-build project for rehabilitation improvements to the Rio Grande levee at the Edinburg Pump Station in Hidalgo County, Texas. The questionnaire evaluates offerors on quality, timeliness, cost controls, business relationships, customer satisfaction, management, technical, environmental, design and construction, safety, and financial management criteria. The related federal solicitation is issued by the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission for the negotiated design and construction of approximately 800 linear feet of levee improvements including earthen embankment, concrete floodwalls, and associated ramps. The major construction efforts include preparing right-of-way, excavation, levee widening, erosion control, floodwall construction, gatewell replacement, backfilling and grading, roadway installation, fencing replacement and revegetation. Offerors are to provide analysis and investigations of the existing levee and any additional geotechnical work required to assess rehabilitation needs.
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
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
International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico United States Section
Past Performance Questionnaire Edinburg Pump Station Levee Rehabilitation Solicitation No. 191BWC21R00XX
RETURN ALL QUESTIONNAIRES TO:
Carmella Speer
(915) 832-4119 Carmella.Speer@ibwc.gov
[Type text]
International Boundary & Water Commission
Past Performance Questionnaire
Note: Past performance information is required for each team member and each major subcontractor. The Offeror shall ensure that a Past Performance Questionnaire is completed for each project used to demonstrate experience and past performance ratings in Volume II Technical Proposal. Relevant past performance information is defined as work of a similar nature to that shown in the Solicitation and accomplished during the past 5 years.
Questionnaires are to be completed by the contracting activity (e.g., owners, clients, and prime Contractors) responsible for the particular projects and furnished by the completing party directly to:
Carmella Speer Contracting Officer
(915) 832-4120 Carmella.Speer@ibwc.gov
Questionnaires provided by the Offeror will not be considered.
Notes for emailing:
· If using the form fields contained in this pdf, either sign the form electronically or scan Respondent Information (Page 13 of 14) page at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi in color.
· If filling out the form by hand, please scan the whole document at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi in color.
· Only pages 4 through 13/14 need be returned.
Solicitation 191BWC20R0003 Edinburg Pump Station Levee Rehabilitation
Instructions for Completing Past Performance Questionnaire
A. Questions 1 through 11 on page 4 shall be completed by the Offeror. All other parts of the questionnaire shall be completed by companies or agencies who hired the Offeror.
B. Indicate, based on the adjectives listed (using letter designation below), the Contractor’s performance on the identified program. Assessments should reflect only Contractor-liable performance. The following is a definition of the rating levels:
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
E
(Exceptional)
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the benefit of the Government. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. |
| An exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an exceptional rating. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
V
(Very Good)
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. |
| A very good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
S
(Satisfactory)
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were, or appear to be, satisfactory. |
| A satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
M
(Marginal)
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| A marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government. |
U
(Unsatisfactory)
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were, or appear to be, ineffective. |
| An unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government. A singular problem, however could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
N/A (Not Applicable)
| Self-explanatory. Use if you are unable to provide a rating for an area. |
| Rating will be neither positive nor negative. |
C. Please provide narrative explanations for your answers. Space for your narrative remarks is provided after each area. If more space is required, attach additional sheets.
D. In addition to completing the attached questionnaire for the identified program, please provide your comments on other programs for which your activity has contracts with this firm. You are urged to supplement your own knowledge of the Contractor’s performance with the judgment of others in your organization.
Business and Project Identification (This page to be completed by Offeror)
| 1. | Offeror's company name: | |
| 2. | Project title: | |
| 3. | Project/Contract number: | |
| 4. | Description of the project: | |
| 5. | Period of performance: | |
| a. | Original scheduled completion date: | |
| b. | Current or actual completion date: | |
| c. | Number of times it changed: | |
| d. | Primary causes of changes: | |
| e. | If not complete, percentage of completion: | |
| 6. | Was Offeror prime Contractor, subcontractor, or vendor: | * |
| 7. | Percentage of work physically performed by Offeror: | |
| 8. | Total project dollar value (prime contract value): | |
| 9. | Offeror's original contract dollar value: | |
| b. | Current or actual value at time of completion: | |
| c. | Number of times it changed: | |
| d. | Primary causes of changes: | |
| 10. | Location of project: | |
| 11. | Specific role of Offeror and persons/organization identified as participants in the project (please provide name, project role, and telephone number for each project team member): |
* Prime Contractor indicates that the Offeror held the contract. Subcontractor indicates that the Offeror provided services (designs, construction, surveying, testing, etc.) for the prime. Vendor indicates that the Offeror provided supplies, materials, equipment, etc. for the prime or a subcontractor.
OFFEROR COMPLETE THIS PAGE
Description of Contract (This and all additional pages to be completed by Reviewer/Respondent)
What function did the Contractor fill on this project? (Check all that apply)
Construction Architect-Engineer
Construction Management (CM) Vendor
Design-Build Other:
How was the Contract awarded? (Check all that apply)
Sealed Bid 8(a) Direct Award
Competitive Sole Source
Negotiated Small Business Set Aside
Task Order/Delivery Order Other:
How was the Contract paid? (Check all that apply)
Unit Price Line Items Time and Materials
Lump Sum Line Items Cost Plus
Lump Sum Contract Other:
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
1. Do you agree with the Contractor's response to 5.d. on page 4?
2. Do you agree with the Contractor's response to 9.d. on page 4?
Please provide additional information to any “no” answers.
Complexity of Project
What was the complexity of project being reviewed:
| For example: | highly complex - multiple construction disciplines with a short time frame | |
| moderately complex - simpler construction with one or two difficult areas | ||
| average - one or two construction disciplines with no problems | ||
| simple - straight forward construction with nothing out of the average |
Please indicate items that the Contractor performed as part of this project.
'Performed' indicates that items were constructed by Contractor, designed by Contractor, inspected by Contractor, or supplied by Contractor, depending upon role indicated on Page 5.
| Type of Work |
| Performed |
| Type of Work |
| Performed |
Clearing and grubbing
Dewatering
Excavation/earthwork
Drilled piers
Compacted backfill
Welding
Trenching
Metal work
Trench shoring
Sheet piling
Levees
Chain Link Fencing
Gravel roadways
Slurry wall (cement-bentonite or other)
Hauling
Reseeding/revegetation
Stormwater control
Structural cast-in-place concrete (this excludes curbs, gutters, slabs, parking lots, and roads)
Concrete formwork
Precast concrete culverts
Sluice/slide gate install
Dewatering
Riprap
REVIEWER COMPLETE THIS PAGE
Evaluation of Contractor's Performance
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable See page 3 for complete rating descriptions.
Quality
| Quality |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Overall quality of the project.
2. Key management/design/construction personnel qualifications to perform the requirements of project.
3. Quality of the subcontractor’s work.
4. Accuracy of the record keeping procedure and the ability to prepare accurate reports.
5. Procedures that ensured that the level of quality remains constant throughout the project.
6. Contractor's quality program in identifying, correcting, and preventing initial and recurring discrepancies.
7. Contractor's quality control manager was onsite during project work.
Comments:
Timeliness
| Timeliness |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Timeliness in completing the project.
2. Meeting program schedule and monitoring critical milestones.
3. Timeliness in completing reports.
4. Proving a process for timely responses to requests for modifications.
Comments:
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable See page 3 for complete rating descriptions.
Cost Controls
| Cost Control |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Provided good products/materials, considering the price paid for the items.
2. Demonstrated financial stability during the project performance period.
3. Demonstrated reasonableness of proposed modification costs.
Comments:
Business Relationships
Business Relationships
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Cooperation in solving problems.
2. A good relationship with technical personnel.
3. A good relationship with contracting office personnel.
4. A good relationship with subcontractors.
5. Compliance with the terms of the contract.
Comments:
Customer Satisfaction
| Customer Satisfaction |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
1. You, as the end user, were satisfied with the services performed.
2. You would be their advocate for future work.
Comments:
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable
Management
| Management |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Adequate, qualified overall project management.
2. Site supervisor understood project scope and work.
3. Management kept crews busy, materials on site, and equipment in working order.
4. Contractor's ability to manage subcontractors.
5. Site supervisor was onsite during project work.
Comments:
Technical
| Technical |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Met the general and detailed design scope of work/specifications requirements.
2. Ensured the technical data and details submitted were acceptable.
3. Submittals were well researched and clearly identified the proposed item.
Comments:
Environmental
| Environmental |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Met the general environmental requirements.
2. Adequacy of Contractor's environmental program, oversight, compliance, and management.
3. Contractor promoted environmental awareness.
Comments:
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable
Design and Construction
Design and Construction
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Your satisfaction with the design and/or methods of construction.
2. The promptness and quality of completion of punch list items.
3. Your satisfaction with the response to warranty calls.
4. General housekeeping and site upkeep.
Comments:
Safety
| Safety |
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Offeror maintained the site in a safe manner.
2. There was a comprehensive safety plan in place that was enforced.
3. Any unsafe work methods, materials, or employees were removed or changed immediately.
4. Employees viewed safety equipment as a necessity.
5. Contractor promoted safety awareness.
| Safety |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
6. Were there any injuries on this project?
7. Were there any accidents on this project?
Please provide additional information to any “yes” answers.
Comments:
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable
Financial Management
| Financial Management |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
1. Were there any instances where subcontractors were not paid?
2. Were any liens placed against the project?
3. To your knowledge, have any key personnel associated with this Offeror been indicted on any criminal charges within the past 10 years?
4. Did any submitted payrolls fail to meet minimum wage rates?
5. Did employees complain about not being paid?
Please provide additional information to any “yes” answers.
Comments:
General Information
| General Information |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
1. Has this Offeror demonstrated capability to work independently and without significant customer oversight?
2. Given a choice, would you use this Offeror again?
Comments:
Ratings: E = Exceptional V = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N/A = Not Applicable
Project Specific Questions
| Coordination Required |
| Yes |
| No |
| N/A |
1. Did project involve work within multiple rights-of-way and/or properties?
2. Did project involve coordination with multiple stakeholders? (For example, property owners and different government entities)
3. Did project involve working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Customs and Border Protection (CBP)?
Coordination
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N/A |
1. Coordination with stakeholders and adjacent property owners.
2. Scheduling of work with affected stakeholders.
3. Coordination and/or compliance with DHS/CBP requirements for work on or near their border wall.
Comments:
Respondent Information
The following information will assist with the analysis of the data.
This information will be kept CONFIDENTIAL and will not be released to Contractor.
Name (please print):
Signature:
Agency/company:
Address:
Address:
Address:
Work phone number:
Email address:
Your role relative to the project/contract:
(e.g., Contracting Officer, Inspector, Contract Administration, Buyer, Quality Assurance Evaluator, Other - explain) Length of involvement in project/contract:
Date the questionnaire was completed:
Do you know anyone else who can provide information regarding this Offeror’s performance?
Name:
Phone:
Name:
Phone:
Name:
Phone:
Project Owner Information (Provide information if the Respondent is not the project owner)
Agency/company:
Address:
Address:
Work phone number:
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
Additional Remarks Use additional pages if necessary.
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .