T10_Solicitation,_Atch_A,_Reference_Questionnaire.docx

Solicitation # 47PE0719R0035 Attachment A

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

PAST PERFORMANCE/EXPERIENCE

For

Roof Replacement Charles E. Bennett Federal Building, Jacksonville FL

Contractor/Offeror: DUNS #:

Project Title/Description:

Contract/Task Order Number:

Project Client/Owner Organization:

Project Location City/State:

Contract Value (award): Contract Value (completion):

Capacity Performed: ___Prime ___Sub-contractor ___Other (please specify):

% of work performed:

If performing as the prime, list major subs (inc. DUNS #s):

If performing as a sub, list the prime (inc. DUNS #):

If project was Design-Build, provide A&E firm (inc. DUNS#):

NTP Date: Completion Date (Initial): Completion Date (final):

CHARACTERISTICS - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR (Yes (Y) or No (N))

Design-Build?

Project involved roofing of a similar nature (modified Bitumen) and size (25K SF)?

Project was performed in an occupied and functioning building?

Project included requirements for noise control and site management?

The total project construction cost at award of the construction contract(s) was = or > than $1.0 million?

Site was located in a major metropolitan downtown area?

Project required close coordination with occupants/owners security regulations?

Project possessed challenges in staging materials and site access?

General Construction team and the proposed subcontracting firms (i.e., A&E, roofing, electrical, etc.) have previously worked together on projects?

----------Section Below (1-6) To Be Completed by Reference (C.O./C.S., COR, etc.)---------

QUESTIONS:

1. Did this project included a significant component of work for…

Roof replacement? ____ Yes ____ No;

2. Was the work completed on-schedule? ____ Yes ____ No

If no, please provide reason for extension(s), i.e., excusable delays, change orders, modifications via supplemental agreement, etc.:

3. Would you hire or work with this firm again? ____ Yes ____ No If no, please explain:

RATINGS:

4. Owner’s rating (E, V, S, M or U). See rating criteria below in Item 5.

a. Quality of design (if applicable) – Design team provided timely, accurate, drawings/specs that facilitated proper installation and construction performance.

Rating:

b. Quality of construction work – Contractor compliance with contract requirements and the Statement of Work. Quality of final construction end product as per owner’s project requirements.

Rating:

c. Quality of administrative deliverables: Contractor ability and effectiveness to meet all administrative requirements as per the SOW/Specs in a professional manner. Includes submittals, RFIs, general correspondence.

Rating:

d. Schedule/Timeliness – Contractor compliance with the approved construction schedule. Includes design submittals and pre NTP activity (bonds, insurance, pre-con meetings, etc) and post substantial completion activity (O&M, warranty, close-out, etc.).

Rating:

e. Cost/Financial management: Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s). Contractor exhibited no financial distress during performance.

Rating:

f. Management Quality of Service & Responsiveness – Project manager and on site superintendence. Ability to respond to all communication and effectively interact with sub-contractors, client POCs, contracting/acquisition personnel, COR/P.M.. Includes effectiveness and professionalism conduct during meetings, responsiveness to emails.

Rating:

5. Performance ratings criteria for this project:

Excellent (E) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Note: An Excellent rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Excellent rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

Satisfactory (S) - Performance meets minimum 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.

Note: A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal (M) - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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.

Note: A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner

Unacceptable (U) - 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Note: An Unacceptable rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

6. Additional Comments (optional):

Reference Name: Position/Title:

E-mail: Phone:

Signature Date

*Note: Reference should convert this form to a non-editable format and electronically sign. Please return to the contractor/offeror. Alternatively, the questionnaire may be forwarded directly to the Contract Specialist, ric.sochor@gsa.gov. Please notify offeror if responding directly to the Contract Specialist.