Att_6_PPQ_140P8523R0019.docx

DOCX document 46 KB Posted

Attached to
Replace Pumps and Motors at Marin Headlands - Nati
Solicitation number
140P8523R0019
Issued by

About this file

This past performance questionnaire is for a firm fixed price contract awarded by the National Park Service to replace pumps and motors at Marin Headlands. The contractor was awarded a $X,XXX,XXX contract on XX/XX/XXXX to perform work from XX/XX/XXX to XX/XX/XXXX. The reference is asked to evaluate the contractor's performance across quality, schedule, cost control, management, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance on a project providing similar pump and motor replacement services. The reference is to return the completed questionnaire by September 20, 2023 to aid in the National Park Service's evaluation of offers for its solicitation to replace pumps and motors at Marin Headlands under solicitation number 140P8523R0019.

View the file

Other files

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

INSTRUCTIONS: Offeror to complete Sections I and II and transmit questionnaire to reference.

Reference to complete Sections III and IV and transmit back to Contracting Officer.

I. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:

Company Name
Company
Street Address
Address
City
City
State
State
Zip Code
XXXXX
DUNS Number
XXXXXXX
Point of Contact
Name, Email, Phone

II. CONTRACT INFORMATION:

Project Title
Title
Contract Number
XXXXXXXXXX
Contract Type
Firm Fixed Price / Time and Materials / Cost Reimbursable / Other
Awarded Contract Price
$X,XXX,XXX
Current / Final Price
$X,XXX,XXX
Contract Award Date
XX/XX/XXXX
Contract Completion Date
XX/XX/XXXX
Period of Performance
XX/XX/XXX – XX/XX/XXX
Project Location
Park or Street Address, City, State
Client / Owner
Company
Brief description of the contract and work effort:
Scope of Work Description

III. REFERENCE:

Name
First, Last
Position / Title
Title
Organization
Agency or Company
Phone Number
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Email Address
Email
Signature
Signature
Date
XX/XX/XXXX

IV. EVALUATION:

Rating
Definition
Satisfactory Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has little or no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Confidence
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
Evaluation Area
Rating

Quality

Quality of workmanship (including subconsultants)?
Choose an item.
Quality of and adherence to quality control plan?
Choose an item.
Quality of informational and technical submittals?
Choose an item.
Overall Quality Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Schedule and Time Management

Met project schedule milestones?
Choose an item.
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner?
Choose an item.
Informational and technical deliverables submitted timely?
Choose an item.
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Choose an item.
Overall Schedule and Time Management Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Cost Control

Addressed design errors and omissions to minimize additional costs?
Choose an item.
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Choose an item.
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Choose an item.
Promptly paid subconsultants?
Choose an item.
Overall Cost Control Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Management

General oversight by project manager?
Choose an item.
Coordination with and control of subconsultants?
Choose an item.
Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)?
Choose an item.
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives?
Choose an item.
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Choose an item.
Overall Management Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Small Business Subcontracting and Labor Standards

Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Choose an item.
Successfully contracted with small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses?
Choose an item.
Quality and adherence to applicable subcontracting plans?
Choose an item.
Overall Small Business Subcontracting and Labor Standards Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of exceptional, marginal, and unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Regulatory Compliance

Met building and life safety codes?
Choose an item.
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating
Choose an item.
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:
Choose an item.
Overall Comments:

V. RETURN:

Return by
September 20, 2023 – 11AM PT
Name
Alexander Salgado
Title
Contracting Officer
Organization
National Park Service
Email
Alex_salgado@nps.gov

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .