47PD0223R0043 RFQ CMS Back on Campus Phase III PP Questionaire Lead Design Firm 11 9 2023.docx

The General Services Administration is evaluating past performance in selecting a design/build contractor for the CMS Back on Campus Phase III Project in Woodlawn, Maryland. You have been identified as someone who could attest to the quality of work performed by the proposed lead design firm. Your completion of the attached questionnaire would be of great benefit in selecting the most qualified firm to perform this project.

Completed questionnaires will be considered procurement sensitive information and will not be seen or reviewed by the offeror in question or any other party not having a need to know.

References will be contacted by the General Services Administration requesting they email the completed Past Performance Questionnaire, which is due on Monday, 8 January 2024 by 2 PM EST. The Past Performance Questionnaire is to be submitted electronically to Mr. Raymond J Porter, Lead Contracting Officer, at email raymondj.porter@gsa.gov with a courtesy copy to the GSA Contract Specialist Shane O'Brien at email shane.obrien@gsa.gov.

FIRM 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:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - LEAD DESIGN FIRM CMS Back on Campus Phase III Project

SECTION 1 – NUMERICAL RATINGS

Please indicate you 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:

RATING PERFORMANCE LEVEL

5 EXCELLENT – The firm’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 firm’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 firm’s performance met contractual requirements. There were minor problems but the corrective actions taken were generally satisfactory.

2 MARGINAL – The firm’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 firm’s performance did not meet most contractual requirements and corrective action was untimely, ineffective or both.

Exhibited professional conduct

Cooperation/responsiveness was timely, provided feedback and suggested alternatives

Offeror was easy to work with, friendly, courteous

Provided effective oversight of project managers/superintendents

Quickly and professionally resolved issues/disputes

Reviewed and addressed subcontractor issues

Provided a clear and effective line of supervision on the project

Negotiated price changes in good faith and in a timely manner

Followed and maintained the established project budget

Met established deadlines

Managed changes without undue cost or schedule impact

Design work met the established standards of quality

Design submissions met established due dates

Resolved delays in a timely manner

Maintained a consistent pace in completing design work

Design team assigned to the project was well qualified

Exhibited cooperation with other members of the project team

Design work met operational requirements of the project

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE – LEAD DESIGN FIRM NEW FEDERAL BUILDING IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

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. Additional Comments: