At13_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.docx
DOCX document 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RED ROCK ADMIN BUILDING PHASE 2 REPAIRS
- Solicitation number
- 140L0626R0015
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed for contractors responding to the Red Rock Admin Building Phase 2 Repairs solicitation issued by the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management National Office (Solicitation Number 140L0626R0015).
The questionnaire is a standard evaluation document used to assess contractor qualifications based on relevant past performance on similar projects. It does not specify the detailed technical requirements, pricing terms, response deadlines, or award dates for the solicitation itself. As a template document, it serves as the framework through which offerors must demonstrate their experience, capability, and success on prior construction or building repair projects comparable in scope and complexity to the Red Rock Admin Building Phase 2 Repairs project. Contractors would be required to complete this questionnaire as part of their proposal submission to substantiate their qualifications for consideration.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 140L0626R0015_SiteVisitSignInSheet_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_140L0626R0015_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| At01_SOW_Jun2026.pdf | ||
| At10_PriceSchedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| At14_RFI_Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140L0626R0015.pdf | ||
| At12_Experience_ProjectDataSheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| At02_WD_NV20260091_25Jun26_Building.pdf | ||
| At11_Lim_on_SubK_Breakout.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Department of Interior Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)
The company listed below in Section A is required to submit past performance references for a project opportunity - Your comments would be appreciated regarding this company’s past performance.
Instructions:
1) The offeror is to complete only the information in Section A, then send the entire past performance questionnaire to project owner/evaluator for completion.
2) The project owner/evaluator (or reference) is to complete Section B, then send the entire past performance questionnaire back to the offeror to be provided with their complete proposal package, which will then be reviewed for evaluation.
3) The past performance questionnaire must be received by the contracting point of contact by the date and time specified in the solicitation (or any amendments). Please note that for electronic submissions, offerors should consider and account for potential delays in transmissions between when an electronic submission is submitted and when an electronic submission is received. Late past performance questionnaires will not be accepted.
4) The offeror may submit only one (1) past performance record or questionnaire for each project. Each past performance project must have been completed within the five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation, unless otherwise specified in the solicitation or by amendment.
5) The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator to verify the evaluation.
Section A
Project Title:
| Contract #: |
| Contract type: |
Location:
Description:
Company Name:
Unique Entity ID:
Owner/Project Manager Name:
Email Address:
Start Date:
Completion Date:
Initial Amount:
Final Amount:
Section B
Evaluator
| Evaluator Name: |
| POC Email: |
| Company/Agency Name: |
| POC Phone: |
Position Held or Function in Relation to Project:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional (EX) |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| Performance met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Marginal (M) |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective action. |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
| Not Applicable (NA) |
| The element does not pertain to the subject project as a result of specific contract and/or project requirements. |
| Evaluation Area |
| Rating |
Please select the appropriate rating and provide supporting information for the following questions.
Quality
Quality of workmanship (including subcontractors)?
Quality of and adherence to quality control plan?
Quality of informational and technical submittals?
Overall Quality Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Schedule & Time Management
Met project schedule milestones and/or deadlines?
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner?
Informational and technical submittals submitted timely?
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Overall Schedule & Time Management Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Pricing and Payments
Minimized additional costs when addressing differing & unforeseen site conditions?
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Promptly paid subcontractors and suppliers?
Overall Pricing and Payment Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Management
General oversight by project manager and superintendent?
Coordination with and control of subcontractors?
Avoidance of accidents & safety violations?
Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)?
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives?
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Overall Management Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Regulatory Compliance
Met building and life safety codes?
Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating
Overall Recommendation:
Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar contracts:
Overall Comments:
Evaluator Signature
MUST BE SIGNED BY CLIENT/OWNER or will not be considered
Name
Date:
image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .