8 Firms Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47PM0025R0002
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity. The questionnaire requests information from evaluating organizations about the past performance of an offeror for the Gate 6 Pedestrian Path Improvements project at the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Washington, DC. The questionnaire covers various aspects of the contractor's performance, including quality of products and services, schedule, technical requirements, cost control, and customer satisfaction. It also asks the evaluator to provide an overall assessment and list the contractor's strengths and weaknesses. The related federal contract opportunity is for a Design-Build project to enhance the pedestrian crossing at Gate 6. The solicitation has a total small business set-aside, a required bid guarantee, and liquidated damages. A mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site walk is scheduled, and offers are due by 3:00 PM EST on December 9, 2024.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
FIRM’S PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection.
Please complete this Questionnaire and send by electronic mail [bonnie.echoles@gsa.gov] to:
Bonnie Echoles, Contracting Officer
PH: (202)441-2912
Desired Response Date: Within 48 hrs AFTER Proposal receipt Date
Ref. Number: RFP 47PM0025R0002
When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.
TO BE COMPLETED BY OFFEROR for the Gate 6 Pedestrian Path Improvements St Elizabeths West Campus SE Wash DC
1. CONTRACTOR’S (OFFEROR’S) NAME & ADDRESS:
4. CONTRACT NO.:
5. CONTRACT INITIATION DATE:
6. COMPLETION DATE:
2. OWNER’S NAME AND ADDRESS
7. CONTRACT VALUE $
8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:
3. PROJECT NAME:
9. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT’S KEY CHARACTERISTICS:
Please add a continuation page if additional space is necessary.
TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE (REFERENCE)
10. EVALUATION: a. EVALUATOR'S NAME, POSITION DURING PROJECT EXECUTION ( Project Manager/ COR/ Other) AND ORGANIZATION:
b. EVALUATOR'S PHONE NUMBER: c. MONTHS PERFORMANCE MONITORED BY EVALUATOR:
Please circle the response code for each topic that best reflects your experience with this Contractor.
EX = Exceptional VG = Very Good
S = Satisfactory MG = Marginal
US = Unsatisfactory N/O = Not Observed
A. Quality of Products and Services - Assess the Contractor’s conformance to contract requirements.
EX VG S MG US N/O
B. Overall Performance – Assess the Contractor’s overall performance as the Construction Manager (as appropriate) for the project .
EX VG S MG US N/O
C. Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the design or construction schedule of activities (as appropriate).
EX VG S MG US N/O
D. Technical Requirements – Assess the Contractor’s ability and capacity to fulfill the technical requirements of the contract.
EX VG S MG US N/O
E. Cost Control – Assess the Contractor’s willingness and ability to manage the contract budget and control costs.
EX VG S MG US N/O
F. Customer Satisfaction – Assess the Contractor’s responsiveness to customer concerns and “user friendliness” in ROUTINE matters.
EX VG S MG US N/O
G. Customer Satisfaction – Assess the Contractor’s responsiveness to customer concerns and “user friendliness” in UNEXPECTED DIFFICULTIES.
EX VG S MG US N/O
H. Repeat Business -- Assess the likelihood that you would want this contractor to perform another contract for you in the near future.
EX VG S MG US N/O
I. List Contractor’s Weak Points:
J. List the Contractor’s Strong Points:
K. List any other projects this contractor has completed for you:
Evaluators Please Note: Those items marked with an asterisk below are considered negative responses. To be considered satisfactory, the client must not provide a negative response.
Was the contractor the prime contractor? ________(yes) ________(no)
Quality of Services/Timeliness of Performance:
1. Was the Contractor cooperative?
| Extremely cooperative | ( ) |
| Satisfactorily cooperative | ( ) |
| Minimally cooperative | ( ) |
| Rarely cooperative | ( )* |
2. How cooperative was the Contractor in working with other contractors to solve problems?
| Extremely cooperative | ( ) |
| Satisfactorily cooperative | ( ) |
| Minimally cooperative | ( ) |
| Rarely cooperative | ( )* |
2. Was the Contractor a problem solver or problem generator?
| Problem solver | ( ) | |
| Problem solver/generator | ( ) | |
| Problem generator | ( )* |
3. Were the Contractor’s recommended solutions effective?
| Extremely effective | ( ) | |
| Generally effective | ( ) | |
| Generally ineffective | ( )* | |
| Extremely ineffective | ( )* |
4. How would you rate the firm’s responsiveness to your basic requirements and/or minor changes in the requirements?
| Always responsive | ( ) | |
| Usually responsive | ( ) | |
| Rarely responsive | ( ) | |
| Unresponsive | ( )* |
5. How would you rate the firm’s responsiveness to emergency situations?
| Extremely responsive | ( ) | |
| Responsive | ( ) | |
| Somewhat responsive | ( ) | |
| Rarely responsive | ( )* |
6. Did you issue any poor performance or cure notices to the Contractor during the contract period?
Yes ( )* No ( )
If the answer to questions 6 is yes, could you describe the nature of the problem?
7. Did the company satisfactorily respond to the deficiencies cited?
| Satisfactorily | ( ) | |
| Somewhat satisfactorily | ( ) | |
| Unsatisfactorily | ( )* |
8. Were there any significant or recurring problems?
Yes ( )* No ( )
If the answer to question 8 is yes, could you describe?
COST CONTROL:
9. Did the Contractor exhibit a propensity to submit unnecessary contract change proposals with cost or price increases?
| Constant requests for changes orders/cost increases | ( )* | |
| Moderate requests for cost increases via change order | ( ) | |
| Request increases as appropriate | ( ) |
10. To what extent did the Contractor meet proposed cost estimates?
| Less than estimated cost | ( ) | ||
| Comparatively equal to the estimated cost | ( ) | ||
| Exceeded the estimated cost | ( ) | ||
| Considerably surpassed the estimated cost | ( )* |
11. To what extent were the cost estimates prepared by the contractor accurate?
| Reasonably Accurate | ( ) | |||
| Occasionally inaccurate | ( ) | |||
| Often Inaccurate | ( )* |
BUSINESS RELATIONS:
12. Was the Contractor responsive to the administrative issues of the contract?
| Always responsive | ( ) | |
| Generally responsive | ( ) | |
| Rarely responsive | ( ) | |
| Unresponsive | ( )* |
13. Did the Contractor commit adequate resources in a timely fashion to the contract to meet the minimum requirements and successfully solve any problems?
| Provided adequate resources | ( ) |
| Provided sufficient resources | ( ) |
| Provided minimal resources | ( ) |
| Provided insufficient resources | ( )* |
14. Did the Contractor’s employees have adequate knowledge of the required software systems and general technical knowledge as required by their specific job classification?
| More than adequate | ( ) | |||
| Adequate | ( ) | |||
| Less than adequate | ( )* |
15. Would you contract with this firm again for the same services? Why or Why not?
RFP 47PM0025R0002 - Gate 6 Pedestrian Path Improvements St Elizabeths West Campus SE WASH DC- 2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .