Past Performance Sheet.pdf
PDF 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Akron Dock Garage Concrete Repairs Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47PF0021R0067
About this file
This document contains a past performance evaluation questionnaire and details of a federal contract opportunity for concrete repairs. The General Services Administration is seeking a Hubzone small business contractor to address deterioration of concrete in the loading dock and parking garage areas of the John F. Seiberling Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Akron, Ohio. The scope of work includes removal, replacement, and repair of concrete spalling and cracks, reinforcement, waterproofing, relocation of an existing guard house and installation of a new one, associated conduit and wiring, temporary removal and reinstallation of card readers, and trench drains work. Providing temporary facilities and ensuring continuity of operations for telecommunications and electrical equipment are also requirements. The performance period is 60 calendar days from notice to proceed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 47PF0021R0067 Amendment 3.pdf | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 47PF0021R0067_0002.pdf | ||
| Amendment 1 47PF0021R0067_0001.pdf | ||
| 47PF0021R0067 Package.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Offeror:
Reference No:
Contact & Project Reference:
Yes No
BUDGET
2. Overall, how was the contractor’s performance regarding 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 regarding 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.)
Comments:
Loading Dock Parking Garage Concrete Repairs Project
Past Performance Questionnaire
Date & Time of Reference:
1. Did the project include work in Concrete Repair?
Loading Dock Parking Garage Concrete Repairs Project
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
Comments:
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
Comments:
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
11. Overall, how would you rate the contractor’s performance?
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor
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 .