A11_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.doc
DOC document 95 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CON Qrts Renovation
- Solicitation number
- 140A2325R0041
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire used to evaluate a contractor's performance across multiple dimensions. The questionnaire is designed for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and provides a comprehensive rating system for assessing contractor performance using adjective ratings ranging from Exceptional (E) to Unsatisfactory (U). The evaluation covers seven key performance areas: quality, schedule/timeliness, customer satisfaction, management/personnel, cost/financial management, safety/security, and general performance.
The related federal contract opportunity is a Small Business Set-aside solicitation (No. 140A2325R0041) for Design/Build Services to renovate staff quarters in multiple locations including Mariano Lake, Crownpoint, Pueblo Pintado, Jeehdeez'a, Kayenta, Tuba City, and Greyhills Academy. The project involves modernizing quarters, correcting code deficiencies, and upgrading utility systems. The solicitation will close on October 30, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. MDT, with a question submission deadline of October 15, 2025. Response packages must include a Price Schedule, Response to Evaluation Factors, and Bid Bond. The Bureau of Indian Education intends to evaluate and award contracts for three separate projects to ensure project success and efficient resource utilization.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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
ATTACHMENT 18
BIA PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
1. Contractor Information
Firm Name:
CAGE Code:
Address:
UEI Number:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Point of Contact:
Contact Phone Number:
2. Work Performed as:
Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information
Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type:
Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify): Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable): Explain Differences:
4. Project Description:
Complexity of Work High Med Routine
How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)
5. Client Information
Name:
Title:
Phone Number: Email Address:
6. Describe the client’s role in the project:
7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
8. Client’s Signature:
NOTE: BIA REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO BIA WITH THEIR PROPOSAL. BIA MAY CONTACT THE CLIENT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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. |
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s / Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective |
| A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for |
not performing beyond the requirements of the contract
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented |
| A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is 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. |
| 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 |
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor negative |
Contractor Information (Firm Name):
Client Information (Name):
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
1. QUALITY:
| a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
| a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| d) Overall customer satisfaction |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR:
| a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| c) Government Property Control |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| e) Utilization of Small Business concerns |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT:
| a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Contractor Information (Firm Name):
Client Information (Name):
| b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back- up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.
Yes
No
e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.
Yes
No
f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.
Yes
No
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.)
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
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). |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)
Yes
No
| d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .