BLANK PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.pdf
PDF 151 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Masonry Parapet Repairs and Spot Repointing
- Solicitation number
- 47PF0020R0023
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template and information on an upcoming federal contract opportunity for masonry parapet repair and repointing services. The General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service Region 5 will be seeking bids for work at the Peoria Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, including masonry and stone repair, granite repointing and sealant application, expansion joint replacement, and granite paver leveling. The pre-solicitation notice establishes an anticipated award date of April 15, 2020 for the 176-day contract, which is set aside for small businesses only. The past performance questionnaire addresses budget, schedule, staffing, administration, subcontractor management, and client coordination on previous similar projects, concluding with an overall rating and willingness to hire the contractor again.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Correction to RF1-2 Question 8.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI 1- 2 Reponses.pdf | ||
| 47PF0020R0023 Package.pdf | ||
| 47PF0020R0023 Package.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Past Performance Questionnaire
Offeror:
Reference No: 47PF0020R0023 Contact & Project Reference:
Date & Time of Reference:
1. Did the project include Masonry/Stone repair, repointing and sealant work?
Yes No
BUDGET
2. Overall, how was the contractor’s performance with regard to budget?
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor
3. Was the project completed within the original contract budget? Yes No If not, what was the reason for the difference in actual costs for the project? (i.e. percentage of owner’s changes, differing site conditions and errors & omissions)
Comments:
SCHEDULE
4. Overall, how was the contractor’s performance in regard to schedule?
5. Did the contractor complete the project within the original contract schedule? Yes No
If not, what was the reason for changes in the schedule?
Comments:
STAFFING
6. Did the contractor staff the job adequately? (PM, Superintendent, etc.) Yes No
7. Were key personnel adequately qualified for their positions? Yes No
Comments:
ADMINISTRATION
8. How responsive and responsible was the contractor in administrative areas? (e.g. documenting progress, tracking changes, responding to RFI’s, processing payments, etc.)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
9. Overall, how well did the prime contractor manage the subcontractors? (Coordinate work, update them on changes, pay promptly, address issues, etc.)
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor NA
TENANT COORDINATION
10. How well did the contractor demonstrate sensitivity to client/tenant concerns?
(Coordination issues, debris, noise, disruptions to the surrounding area or occupied spaces, etc.)
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor NA
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
11. Overall, how would you rate the contractor’s performance?
12. If you had a chance, would you hire the contractor again? Yes No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
13. Would you like to make any additional comments, positive or negative, concerning the Offeror’s performance on your contract(s)?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .