ATTACHMENT B - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Y1LZ--Construct Additional Parking Lots Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C26120R0028
About this file
This document includes a past performance questionnaire for evaluation of offerors responding to solicitation number 36C26120R0028 for design-build construction services. The Department of Veterans Affairs will design and construct approximately 500,000 square feet of additional asphalt parking areas on the Northeast and Southeast areas of its medical center campus in Las Vegas, Nevada, including 420 spaces in Area A, 60 spaces in Area B, and approximately 400 spaces and stormwater management in Area C. Offerors must be verified Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses registered in the System for Award Management. The solicitation will be a two-phase design-build procurement in accordance with FAR 36.3 with an estimated value between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000. The past performance questionnaire requests ratings and comments on offerors' technical and cost performance, schedule, customer satisfaction, management, safety, and compliance on relevant prior contracts to evaluate offerors' relevancy and confidence in successful performance.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
VA Southern Nevada Health Care System Las Vegas, NV
The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past and present performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26120R0028 – Construct Additional Parking Lots at the Las Vegas, NV VAMC. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s).
a. Please complete all sections of the attached questionnaire. Include your name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, telephone and fax number.
b. Include the contractor’s name, your point of contact (POC,) the title and/or description of the type of work performed the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and the type of award.
c. Use the attached rating scale rate each performance element.
d. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments. Clear handwritten responses are sufficient.
e. Due to time constraints, it is important that the questionnaire be completed and returned by the date proposal is due (July 30, 2020 at 16:00 am PST). Please e-mail your response to the following address:
Maxwell W. Derck (USN Ret.)
Contract Specialist - Construction Branch II Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) VHA Regional Procurement Office West, Network Contracting Office (NCO) 21 VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System | Administration Building, Room 2H210G 6900 N Pecos Road North Las Vegas, NV 89086 Desk Phone: 702-791-9000 ext. 14939 Email: Maxwell.Derck@va.gov
Thank you for your time and participation.
PAST PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE
PHASE-ONE - FACTOR 3 – Past Performance (Relevancy)
| Adjectival Rating |
| Description |
| Very Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
PHASE-ONE - FACTOR 3 – Past Performance (Quality)
| Adjectival Rating |
| Description |
| Substantial Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| Limited Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:
CONTRACTOR MAIN POC
CONTRACT NUMBER:
CONTRACT VALUE:
| CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS: |
| CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE: |
Prime Contractor Sub- Contractor Key Personnel
PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
RESPONDENT’S NAME
YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS
PHONE/FAX NO:
E-MAIL:
1. QUALITY:
| A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
| A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Overall customer satisfaction |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR
| A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Government Property Control |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
| A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below |
| RATING |
| Yes |
| No |
Comments:
6. SAFETY/SECURITY:
A. To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan and respond to safety issues?
(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)
RATING
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
7. GENERAL:
| A. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or Contracting officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues.) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)
RATING
| Yes |
| No |
| D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .