Attachment L-C Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fabrication & Testing of FORTIS 8-Axle Railcar
- Solicitation number
- 89243222RNE000025
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and information about a related federal contract opportunity for fabrication and testing of an 8-Axle railcar prototype. The questionnaire collects data on an offeror's performance on prior contracts and will be used to evaluate past performance for the railcar opportunity. The federal contract is issued by the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration to fabricate and test an AAR S-2043-compliant prototype for a Fortis railcar design provided by DOE. The purpose of the railcar is to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste casks in trains of up to seven cask-carrying railcars. Offerors must comply with AAR standards and are responsible for obtaining necessary documentation. The contract requires fabricating the railcar to the provided design, conducting testing to receive AAR approval, and delivering an S-2043-compliant prototype railcar.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
Attachment L-C Past Performance Information Questionnaire Past Performance Information Questionnaire for:_[Insert Name of Offeror] _______
Respondent: Please fill in the following table:
1.
Complete Name and Title of Responder
2.
Company or Agency Name, Address, Telephone Number, Facsimile Number (w/Area Code), and E-mail Address
3.
Contract Name or Title, Contract Number and Type of Contract
4.
Signature
Outstanding Performance was substantially and consistently above contract requirements. Contractor displayed an overall superior understanding of contract requirements, and used innovative approaches leading to enhanced performance.
Good Performance was above minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a thorough understanding of contract requirements.
Satisfactory Performance met minimum contract requirements.
Marginal Performance was below minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a lack of thorough understanding of contract requirements in one or more significant performance areas.
Unsatisfactory Performance completely failed to meet the minimum contract requirements. Contractor displayed a total lack of understanding of contract requirements.
NA
Not Applicable
DK
Don’t Know No knowledge available to respond to this question.
For any rating(s) less than 2, please attach an explanatory narrative. We greatly appreciate your time and assistance in completing this questionnaire.
[Page 1 of 3] Past Performance Information Questionnaire for: _[Insert Name of Offeror]______
| 1. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in the following areas: Meeting contract milestones? Submitting deliverables timely? Adherence to contract schedules? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
| 2. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to perform within the contract ceiling or estimated cost? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 3. Did the contractor utilize cost efficiencies in performance of your contract? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 4. How would you rate the contractor’s cost performance? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 5. Did the contractor submit accurate and timely invoices? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 6. If proposals were generated for changes, requests for equitable adjustment, or claims, how would you rate the reasonableness of the pricing? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 7 How would you rate the contractor’s key personnel performance? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
| 8 How would you rate the contractor’s ability to recruit and retain strong, well-qualified key personnel? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
9.
Did the contractor utilize an effective project management system that included planning, budgeting, status tracking, reporting, baseline management, critical path analysis, and work breakdown structure?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
10.
Has there been a positive or negative trend in contract performance (“0” would be a very negative trend, “4” would be a very positive trend)
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
11.
How would you rate the contractor’s ability to create teaming/partnering relationships to achieve project goals?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
| 12. How would you rate the contractor’s ability to integrate activities with other contractors on multiple contractor sites? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
13.
Was the Statement of Work executed effectively by the contractor in a consistently high quality manner?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
14.
How would you rate the contractor’s responsiveness to technical direction?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
15.
Was the contractor’s Environment Safety & Health (ES&H) program in compliance with contract requirements and protective of workers, public, and the environment?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
Past Performance Information Questionnaire for: _[Insert Name of Offeror]______ 16.
Was the contractor effective in subcontract management and did it meet subcontracting goals?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
17.
Did the contractor provide an effective and efficient transition from the previous contractor?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
18.
Did the contractor effectively manage regulatory compliance programs and regulatory interfaces?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
19.
Did the contractor’s corporate office effectively support your contract?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
20.
Did the contractor develop and implement an effective quality assurance program?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
21.
Did the contractor effectively implement human resources requirements and manage labor relations?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
| 22. Did the contractor manage effectively including cooperation with the technical representatives, the Contracting Officer, and other stakeholders showing flexibility and responsiveness? |
| [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK] |
23.
Was the contractor effective in working with organized labor, community groups, media, and other stakeholders?
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [NA] [DK]
24.
Provide an overall assessment of the contractor’s performance.
[4] [3] [2] [1] [0]
25.
Would you hire this Company again?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Please Provide Any Additional Comments Below
PAGE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .