6. Past Performance Survey.doc

DOC document 72 KB Posted

Attached to
MMAC Mechanical Construction Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
6973GH-22-R-00065
Issued by
Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Franchise Acquisition Services

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to MMAC Mechanical Construction Solicitation, newest first.
File Type Posted
CSR RTU5.jpg JPG image
Solicitation 6973GH-22-R-00065 Amend 00001.pdf PDF
CSR RTU9.jpg JPG image
1. Client Auth. Letter.doc DOC document
4. Contractor's Release.pdf PDF
7. SF25 Performance Bond.pdf PDF
9. WD OK20210049 9-02-2022.pdf PDF
12. SOW Appendix B Substitution form.doc DOC document
13. SOW Appendix C AMKFM-224001 Revision 15.pdf PDF
14. SOW Appendix D Installed Equipment Data sheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
15. SOW Appendix E Construction waste management.xls XLS spreadsheet
3. Chapter_33-Construction Safety.pdf PDF
5. Past Performance Information Form.doc DOC document
17. Division 26 Electrical.pdf PDF
18. Division 27 Communication.pdf PDF
20. 22-026437 Task Requirement SOW.pdf PDF
Solicitation 6973GH-22-R-00065.pdf PDF
2. Mech SOW 08.30.2022.pdf PDF
8. SF25A Payment Bond.pdf PDF
10. SOW Table of Contents 09.02.2022.doc DOC document
11. SOW Appendix A Submittal form.doc DOC document
21. Schedule B Task Requirement.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
22. 22-026437 Task Requirement Bid Set Drawings.pdf PDF
16. SOW Appendix F EXCAVATION PERMIT v1.pdf PDF
19. Division 28 Electronic Safety and Security.pdf PDF
Show all 25

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ATTACHMENT 6

SIR/RFO 6973GH-22-R-00065

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

PART ONE: INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please complete this questionnaire based on the following guidance:

a. Handwritten responses are acceptable.

b. Indicate, based on the ratings below, the contractor’s performance on the identified program. Assessments should reflect only performance for which contractor is/was responsible. The following is a definition of the rating levels:

RATING

PERFORMANCE LEVEL

4 EXCELLENT: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the benefit of the Government/Customer. The contractual performance of the factors being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

3 GOOD: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the benefit of the Government/Customer. The contractual performance of the factors being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

2 SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the factors contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

1 MARGINAL: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the factors being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

0 POOR: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and corrections are 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.

c. Please circle a “Number” or “Yes” / “No” corresponding to your rating or “N/A” if you are unable to provide a rating for an area.

d. PLEASE PROVIDE NARRATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR ANY MARGINAL, POOR OR “YES” RATINGS. SPACE FOR YOUR NARRATIVE REMARKS IS PROVIDED ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE THE BACK OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

e. You are urged to supplement your own knowledge of the contractor’s performance with judgment of others in your organization. In addition to completing the attached questionnaire for the identified program, we solicit your comments on other similar programs for which your activity has contracts with this offeror.

2.

Please return completed questionnaire via e-mail to the following:

Ms. Nia Glover, Contracting Officer, AAQ-730

E-mail: nia.glover@faa.gov

Due Date: October 25, 2022

PART TWO: GENERAL INFORMATION

The company who provided this questionnaire is proposing on a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Multiple Award Mechanical Construction Services contract at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (MMAC), in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Past performance is of considerable importance to this Source Selection. Therefore, input from current or previous customers of the offeror is very important.

A. CONTRACTOR:

POINT OF CONTACT:

TITLE:

TELEPHONE NO.:

E-MAIL:

B. CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACT TYPE:

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

APPROXIMATE DOLLAR VALUE:

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:

PART THREE: QUESTIONS

The numbers 0 to 4 correspond with the following descriptive values provided on the questionnaire cover page:

Poor Marginal Satisfactory Good Excellent

Quality/Timeliness of Service

1.
How would you rate the contractor's general overall compliance with contract requirements?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
2.
How would you rate the timeliness of the Contractor's service - delivered submittals on time and adhering to the required schedule?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
3.
How well did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely fashion to meet contract requirements?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
4.
How well did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely fashion to solve problems?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
5.
How would you rate the contractor on the timeliness of its responses to inquiries or other administrative matters?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A

Cost Control

6.
If applicable, how well did the contractor meet the proposed cost estimates?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A

Business Relations – Effective Management

7.
If applicable, how well did the contractor meet the proposed cost estimates?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
8.
How well did the contractor display initiative in meeting contract requirements?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
9.
How well was the contractor's selection of personnel and how well was it appropriate for the performance of this contract?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
10.
How effective was the contractor in interfacing with the Government's (or other) staff?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
11.
How would you rate the contractor’s overall management of this contract?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
12.
How would you rate the performance of the contractor's key personnel?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A

Customer Satisfaction

13.
How well did the contractor provide timely assistance, when responding to problems?
0 1 2 3 4 N/A
14.
Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default, or is a termination pending?

a. If so, please explain? ___________________________

Yes or No

Integrity

15.
Did you experience any integrity problems with this Contractor?

a. If so, please explain? ___________________________

Yes or No

16.
Did the contractor maintain integrity during contract performance? If not, please provide reason.

a. If so, please explain? ___________________________

Yes or No

17. Please provide any other comments you may have

PART FOUR: RESPONDENT INFORMATION

The following information will assist in the analysis of the data provided. Information will be kept CONFIDENTIAL:

NAME OF RESPONDENT: _____________________________________

POSITION TITLE: ____________________________________________

ORGANIZATION: _____________________________________________

TELEPHONE NO.: ____________________________________________

LENGTH OF INVOLVEMENT IN PROGRAM/CONTRACT: ______________

DATE QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETED: ____________________________

THANK YOU!

PAGE

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .