Tab 15 Past Performance Questionnaire 2022 08 19.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

OFFEROR BEING EVALUATED: _______________________________________

PROJECT BEING EVALUATED: _______________________________________

NAME OF EVALUATOR: _______________________________________

EVALUATOR’S AGENCY/COMPANY: _______________________________________

EVALUATOR’S ROLE IN PROJECT: _______________________________________

EVALUATOR’S EMAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________

EVALUATOR’S TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______________________________________

reviewed by the offeror in question or any other party not having a need to know. Electronic copies of the Completed questionnaires will be considered procurement sensitive information and will not be seen or most qualified firm to perform this project.

listed below. Your completion of the attached questionnaire would be of great benefit in selecting the one of the offerors as someone who could attest to the quality that offeror’s performance on the project construction of the Nix Building Renovation Project in Philadelphia, PA. You have been identified by the The General Services Administration is evaluating past performance in selecting a contractor for the

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE – PRIME CONTRACTOR

WEIS USBC RELOCATION PROJECT

completed questionnaire should be emailed to Steven Sutkin at steven.sutkin@gsa.gov and Paul Lindinger at Paul.Lindinger@gsa.gov.

We request receipt of your completed questionnaire by

StevenMSutkin Typewriter

09/06/2022

RATING PERFORMANCE LEVEL

5 EXCELLENT – The contractor’s performance met all contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s or customer’s benefit. The few corrective actions that may have been necessary were provided expeditiously and were highly effective.

4 GOOD - The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. Performance was provided with some minor problems, but corrective action was prompt and effective.

3 ACCEPTABLE – The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements. There were minor problems but the corrective actions taken were generally satisfactory.

2 MARGINAL – The contractor’s performance did not meet some contractual requirements.

There were significant problems with the contractor’s performance and the corrective action provided was only marginally effective or was not fully implemented.

1 UNACCEPTABLE – The contractor’s performance did not meet most contractual requirements and corrective action was untimely, ineffective or both.

N NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating

MANAGEMENT 5 4 3 2 1 N

Exhibits professional conduct Cooperation/responsiveness is timely, provides/solicits feedback, suggests alternatives

Offeror is easy to work with, friendly, courteous Provides effective oversight of project managers/superintendents Quickly and professionally resolves issues/disputes Reviews and addresses subcontractor issues Provides a clear and effective line of supervision on the worksite Follows and maintains the established project budget Follows the negotiated subcontracting plan

CONSTRUCTION 5 4 3 2 1 N

Complies with laws and regulations Coordinates and controls subcontractors, adheres to work schedule Maintains good construction pace and work environment Site management – materials are properly stored and staged, job-site is clean Adheres to an adequate initial project schedule, schedule revisions are timely submitted

Resolves delays in a timely manner

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE – PRIME CONTRACTOR

WEIS USBC RELOCATION PROJECT

SECTION 1 – NUMERICAL RATINGS

Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the contractor’s performance on the project in question by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the rating scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

StevenMSutkin

Completes punch list items in a timely manner Uses specified materials Identifies and corrects deficient work timely and effectively Implements and follows a satisfactory safety plan Provides high quality workmanship QC testing is adequate and fully implemented

CLOSE-OUT/WARRANTY 5 4 3 2 1 N

Requirement documents are fully submitted Documents are submitted in a timely manger As-built drawings – redline drawings are accurately maintained on site per specs Close-out documents follow the required format Responses to warranty issues are timely and effective Noted deficiencies are adequately corrected

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 5 4 3 2 1 N

Overall performance – Likelihood of contracting with this firm on future projects

SECTION 2 – NARRATIVE COMMENTS

Please provide in the spaces below any additional comments you have regarding the offeror’s performance on the project in question:

1. Strengths of Performance:

2. Weaknesses of Performance:

3. Describe the contractor’s level of attention to safety and describe any incidents that occurred on the project:

StevenMSutkin

4. Additional Comments: