3-Past Performance Questionnaire-Livermore California Demo.docx

FCC Livermore California Demolition Solicitation No: 273FCC24Q0039

Past Performance Questionnaire

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intends to award a contract to a quoter to perform the following tasks:

Demolition of buildings and bridge Site restoration to pre-construction condition Removal and disposal of building material and debris As-needed abatement of hazardous materials including Hazardous Building Materials (HBM) Surveys Project/construction management to include planning, cost management, quality management, contract administration, and safety management, etc.

In order to accurately evaluate the vendor’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance of this vendor.

This Past Performance Questionnaire is comprised of two parts: 1) a Performance Rating Form; and 2) an Additional Comment Form.

Please make the subject line of the e-mail read: Solicitation no. 273FCC24Q0039 - Past Performance Questionnaire – (Name of Vendor).

To qualify for evaluation under this procurement, the form must be received by the Contracting Officer no later than Friday, October 18, 2024 5:00 P.M. EST. Send to Luis.Salas@FCC.GOV

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Federal Communications Commission – Livermore California Demolition Past Performance Questionnaire

PERFORMANCE RATING FORM

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:

CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

hdfgfdhfdhd

CONTRACT VALUE:

CONTRACT TYPE:

CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE NAME (OR EQUIVALENT FOR NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITY):

NAME:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE NUMBER:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (Check All That Apply):

Tasks Areas:

☐ DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND BRIDGE

☐ SITE RESTORATION TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION

☐ REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND DEBRIS

☐ ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (AS NEEDED)

☐ HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS (HBM) SURVEYS (AS NEEDED)

☐ PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TO INCLUDE:

☐ PLANNING

☐ COST MANAGEMENT

☐ QUALITY MANAGEMENT

☐ CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

☐ SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Other (Add in Space Below)

NAME OF EVALUATOR:

COMPANY/AGENCY:

DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED:

AWARDS RECEIVED:

Place an “X” in the appropriate rating for each question.

PERFORMANCE ELEMENT

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE (QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH AND DESIGN: (For example: Were the products and services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? Did the contractor meet the needs of customer, performed successfully within contract constraints, and accommodate changing requirements?)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS:

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

3. EXECUTION OF REQUIREMENTS:

(For example: Did the contractor demonstrate the ability to plan, manage and execute Agile and/or Waterfall methodologies and practices?)

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE (QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE)

4. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES:

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

5. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND CONTRACTOR BEHAVIOR/COMMUNICATION

6. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction? Was the customer satisfied with the final product or service?)

7. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR:

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction? Did the contractor’s personnel conduct themselves in a professional manner?)

Federal Communications Commission – Livermore California Demolition Past Performance Questionnaire

PERFORMANCE ELEMENT

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE (QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE)

8. COMMUNICATION:

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer's representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and inhouse staff?)

9. ISSUE/PROBLEM RESOLUTION:

(For example: Was the contractor able to identify problems as they occurred and suggest alternative approaches to problems. Did the contractor displayed initiative and innovative approaches to solve issues/problems?)

COST CONTROLS

10. COST CONTROLS:

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)

RECOMMENDATION

PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate

11. GIVEN THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU DO BUSINESS WITH THIS CONTRACTOR AGAIN?

ADDITIONAL COMMENT FORM

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below.