AE IDIQ Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation: 47PF0021R0071

Chicagoland Architect Engineer IDIQ INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill out the form below with the applicable information. References must ensure that their completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) are sent directly to Gregory Karpovics, Contracting Officer at gregory.karpovics@gsa.gov. This is done in order to allow references to be candid about each firm's past performance. References may share their answers with the firms asking them to serve as a reference, but are not obliged to do so. Your answers will be used to calculate a numeral and adjectival rating for Evaluation Factor 4 "Past Performance".

The goal of this PPQ is to evaluate prospective Architect/Engineer firms on their performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. If you have any questions or require additional clarification please contact the Contracting Officer at gregory.karpovics@gsa.gov.

The ratings and the point score used for this questionnaire are the following:

Excellent (5): Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's/Client's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how these events were of benefit to the Government. 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.

Very Good (4) : Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory (3): Satisfactory

Definition: Performance meets 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.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract or order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract or order.

Marginal (2): Marginal

Definition: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory (1): Unsatisfactory

Definition: 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 a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Neutral (0): A neutral rating will be given to offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable, it simply represents that no record of relevant past performance is available for which to make a determination of performance success and overall risk.