Attach_10_Past Performance Questi.DOCX
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 12026120R0004
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract opportunity for road improvements on the Boise National Forest in Idaho. The opportunity involves traffic control, erosion control, installation of 3 aquatic organism passage culverts, replacement and installation of additional road drainage culverts, embankment material placement, installation of 2 underdrain systems, riprap placement, road surfacing with aggregate and asphalt paving. The contract time is 276 calendar days from June 8, 2020 to October 8, 2021. A site visit is scheduled for April 29, 2020 at the Idaho City Ranger District Office. The estimated value is between $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. Wage rates will be set according to ID20190092. The full solicitation will be available on beta.sam.gov within 15 days, and amendments will also be posted there. The NAICS code is 237310. The opportunity is set aside for small businesses and the Department of Agriculture Forest Service R4-Intermountain Region is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
Your assistance is requested in support of a Source Selection for 12026120R0004
Please complete this Questionnaire and email as an attachment to Tanya Spanfellner;
tanya.spanfellner@usda.gov
Response date: May 8, 2020
The following ratings are provided for your use in completing the questionnaire.
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
CONTRACT NUMBER
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
| CONTRACT VALUE |
| CONTRACT TYPE |
CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY):
| NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS |
| DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED |
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| Exceptional (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they 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 (VG) |
| 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. |
| To justify a Very Good, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| 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. |
| 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/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/order. |
| Marginal (M) |
| 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. |
| 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 of letter). |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| 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. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
| Not Applicable (N) |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive or negative |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Technical Performance
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.
2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
Did the contractor demonstrated an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? Did the contractor effectively collaborate with the client on issues and offer sound resolutions?
Timeliness of Performance
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
Was the contractor able to obtain the right mix of qualified personnel resources required to complete the project in a timely manner? Were the required workforce stable throughout the term of the contract or project?
4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?
Quality
5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE
Was high quality work delivered with little to no rework in a timely manner? Was proactive quality control and problem resolution evident?
6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, addressing poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables or other management issues?
7. COMMUNICATION
Did the contractor work and communicate well and in proactive manner with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, the public, other contractors, subcontractors, and stakeholders?
Cost Control
8. COST CONTROL
Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?
9. OVERLL RATING
| FOR #10, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate |
| YES |
| NO |
10. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
Additional Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .