47PD0224R0048 Past Performance and Sub Contracting Form.pdf

APPENDIX D

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Title: Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Services for the Phases 2-5 Repairs and Alterations Prospectus for the U.S. Courthouse in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

The General Services Administration is evaluating past performance in selecting a contractor for a Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) contract. You have been identified by the one of the offerors as someone who could attest to the quality that offeror’s performance on the project listed below. Your completion of the attached questionnaire would be of great benefit in selecting the most qualified firm to perform the work under this contract.

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. Electronic copies of the completed questionnaire should be emailed to Raymondj.porter@gsa.gov

We request receipt of your completed questionnaire by 30 August 2024 by 2 PM EST.

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:

mailto:Raymondj.porter@gsa.gov

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Title: Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Services for the Phases 2-5 Repairs and Alterations Prospectus for the U.S. Courthouse in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

PROJECT

TITLE:

PROJECT

LOCATION:

DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CONTRACT:

Interview Questions for Company Level Past Performance

a. Design Phase Services

b. Timeliness of performance

c. Cost Control

d. Quality product

e. Project Management

A. Design Phase Services

1. Did the contractor provide design phase services for your project?

Yes

No

2. Was their participation in design beneficial in ensuring constructability?

Contractor provided input in design that enhanced constructability.

Contractor provided some comments that improved the project design.

Contractor provided minimal beneficial design comments.

Contractor provided no value or did not participate in design.

Comments:

B. Timeliness of Performance –

1. Did the contractor complete the project on schedule?

Contractor completed project prior to approved scheduled completion date.

Contractor completed project by original scheduled completion date.

Contractor failed to meet project completion date.

2. To what extent did the contractor adhere to contract delivery schedules at significant milestones?

Contractor exceeded scheduled milestone requirements.

Contractor typically delivered as scheduled but occasionally missed milestone dates.

Contractor rarely met scheduled milestone requirements.

3. How responsive was the contractor in addressing unforeseen/unanticipated conditions?

Contractor consistently exercised a pro-active approach.

Contractor demonstrated some initiative in exercising a pro-active approach.

Contractor never demonstrated a pro-active approach.

C. Cost Control –

1. Did the contractor submit reasonably priced change proposals?

Contractor consistently submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

Contractor typically submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

Contractor submitted fair and reasonably priced proposals some of the time.

Contractor rarely submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

2. How responsive was contractor in submitting proposals for owner-initiated changes?

Contractor was extremely responsive in expediting proposal submissions.

Contractor was generally responsive in expediting proposal submissions Contractor was sometimes responsive in timely submissions of change

Proposals.

Contractor was nonresponsive in timely submissions of change proposals.

3. How reasonable were contractor-initiated changes?

Contractor initiated changes were extremely reasonable.

Contractor initiated changes were typically reasonable.

Contractor initiated changes were reasonable some of the time.

Contractor initiated changes were not reasonable.

D. Quality product

1. How well has the contractor complied with contract requirements?

Contractor exceeded contract requirements.

Contractor met the minimum requirements.

Contractor did not meet the minimum requirements.

2. Did they conform to standards of good workmanship?

Contractor exceeded standards of good workmanship.

Contractor met the standards of good workmanship.

Contractor did not meet standards of good workmanship.

3. Does the contractor have the ability to adapt to changing requirements while maintaining a desired level of quality?

Contractor was extremely effective in adapting to changing requirements.

Contractor was effective in adapting to changing requirements.

Contractor was ineffective in adapting to changing requirements.

E. Project Management

1. How well did the contractor work with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors?

Contractor worked extremely well with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors) Contractor was generally cooperative with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors.

Contractor did not work well with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors.

2. Was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of project related third party entities (i.e. tenants)?

Contractor was very cooperative.

Contractor was generally cooperative.

Contractor was not cooperative.

3. Did the contractor maintain a consistent on- s i t e management/project team throughout the duration of the project?

No adjustments were made contractor maintained the same team throughout the duration of the project.

Minor adjustments to the support team were made during the project.

Significant changes to the key personnel of the project team were made during the project.

Contractor maintained no consistency in key personnel during the project.

Additional Comments

Evaluated By:

Name and Title:

Organization:

Interviewed By (if questionnaire is conducted via telephone):

(Name & Date)

APPENDIX E

OFFEROR-PROVIDED FORMS IN SOLICITATION 47PD0224R0048

SUBCONTRACTING COMMITMENT GOALS and OUTREACH EFFORTS FORM

Name of Offeror:

Large and small business offerors are required to submit proposed subcontracting goals for this contract. If this contract is awarded to a large business concern, it will be required to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan prior to award. The subcontracting plan must contain goals that are identical to or higher than the goals proposed on this form. Proposed subcontracting goals must be provided in dollars and percentages for the categories of subcontracting listed below:

Offeror is is not, a small business concern.

If offeror is a small business concern, indicate the percentage of work you intend to perform with your own workforce: %

Total Amount to be

Subcontracted Total Large Business

Subcontracts Total Small Business

Subcontracts

100% % %

Small Disadvantaged Business

Women- Owned Small Business

HUBZone Small Business

Veteran- Owned Small Business

Service- Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

1. Identify names (if available) of specific small business firms who will participate as joint venture partners, team members or subcontractors and the work they are to perform. Use additional page(s) if necessary.

2. Offerors need to describe their proposed outreach efforts to meet or exceed the subcontracting goals listed above. Use additional page(s) if necessary.

3. Offerors need to describe how your firm will maximize competition and select subcontractors that provide best value. Use additional page(s) if necessary.