Past Performance Sheet.pdf
PDF 185 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Stokes Hardening Project Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47PF0025R0015
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for the Stokes Courthouse Hardening Project, which evaluates a contractor's performance across multiple dimensions including budget, schedule, staffing, administration, project management, tenant coordination, and overall performance. The questionnaire uses a rating scale from 1-5 and includes yes/no questions covering key project management aspects such as budget adherence, schedule compliance, staff qualifications, subcontractor management, and client sensitivity.
The related federal contract opportunity, solicitation number 47PF0025R0015, is issued by the GSA Public Buildings Service Region 5 for security improvements at the Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse in Cleveland, Ohio. The project involves adding security glazing storefronts on ground-level windows, replacing exterior and rotunda entry doors to enhance forced entry protection. The performance period is 173 calendar days, with an estimated construction cost between $1-2 million. The procurement is a negotiated, best-value approach targeting small businesses (NAICS 236220, $45 million size standard), with proposals evaluated on past performance, experience, and price, where technical factors will be weighted more heavily than price.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 0003_Amendment.pdf | ||
| 0001-Amendment.pdf | ||
| Request for Information Responses.pdf | ||
| 0002_Extension.pdf | ||
| SF24-23a.pdf | ||
| Attendance Sheet_ 031125.pdf | ||
| Pre Bid Conference_031125.pdf | ||
| Drawings.pdf | ||
| Specifications.pdf | ||
| Form_SF24.pdf | ||
| RFP 47PF0025R0015.pdf | ||
| WD OH20250074_010325.pdf | ||
| Form_SF1442.pdf | ||
| Form_GSA527.pdf |
Show all 14
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
Stokes Courthouse Hardening Project
Past Performance Questionnaire
Offeror:
Reference No:
Contact & Project Reference:
Date & Time of Reference:
1. Did the project include work in Replacement of Security Windows and Doors?
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?
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor
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.)
Excellent - 5 4 3 2 1 – Poor
Comments:
RogerRSchulte Highlight
Stokes Courthouse Hardening 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 .