7. Factor 2 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26125R0032
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for a VA construction project to relocate and renovate the Urology Clinic at the Sacramento VA Medical Center in Mather, CA. The PPQ is part of the solicitation 36C26125R0032 and is designed to evaluate contractor performance across seven key areas: quality, schedule/timeliness, customer satisfaction, management/personnel, cost/financial management, safety/security, and general performance. Contractors are rated on a scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with an option for Neutral/Not Applicable, and are encouraged to provide detailed comments for each performance category.
The associated federal contract opportunity involves a 550-calendar day project to renovate approximately 5,800 square feet on level 01 of building 650, which includes complete gut and remodel of the urology clinic. The project requires a general contractor to provide labor, materials, equipment, supervision, and professional engineering services for architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work. The solicitation is issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Network Contracting Office 21, with point of contact Mr. Rosario Chaidez (Contract Specialist) and Mr. Daniel Jhun (Contracting Officer). Interested contractors must submit their PPQ responses via email by the solicitation due date.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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 (PPQ) INSTRUCTIONS
VA Northern California Healthcare System Mather, CA
The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26125R0032 – Relocate and Renovate Urology Clinic at the Sacramento VA Medical Center at Mather, CA. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s). If a CPARS evaluation exists for the project, then there will be no requirement for a PPQ; the contractor would simply submit the completed CPARS evaluation with their proposal.
a. Please complete all sections of the attached PPQ questionnaire. Include your full name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, and telephone number. PPQs must be fully completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. Include the contractor’s full name, point of contact (POC) the full title and/or description of the type of work performed, the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and type of award.
b. Use the attached rating scale to rate each performance element.
c. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments.
d. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it must be submitted with the technical proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit a PPQ (Attachment 7). PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor.
e. If you have any please e-mail your PPQ responses with your proposal, on or before the solicitation due date, to the Contract Specialist, Mr. Rosario Chaidez, at email: Rosario.chaidez1@va.gov and copy: Mr. Daniel Jhun, Contracting Officer at email: Daniel.jhun@va.gov.
Thank you for your time and participation.
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE RATING SCALE
| RATING: |
| DEFINITION: |
| USAGE: |
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Performance exceeded many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| An EXCEPTIONAL 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 Exceptional rating. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified |
| GOOD |
| Performance exceeded some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| A GOOD rating is appropriate when the contractor has successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| SATISFACTORY |
| Performance met all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the elements being assessed were accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| A SATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when there were only a few minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| MARGINAL |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element 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 successful. |
| A MARGINAL rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| An UNSATISFACTORY 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. |
| Neutral/Not Applicable or Unknown |
| No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation |
| Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported. |
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:
CONTRACTOR MAIN POC
CONTRACT NUMBER:
CONTRACT VALUE:
| CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS: |
| CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE: |
Prime Contractor Sub- Contractor Key Personnel
PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
RESPONDENT’S PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE
YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS
PHONE/FAX NO:
E-MAIL:
1. QUALITY:
| A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
| A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Overall customer satisfaction |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR
| A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Government Property Control |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
| A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below |
| RATING |
| Yes |
| No |
Comments:
6. SAFETY/SECURITY:
A. To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan and respond to safety issues?
(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)
RATING
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
7. GENERAL:
| A. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or Contracting officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues.) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)
RATING
| Yes |
| No |
| D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .