Attach_3_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A/E Design Services to provide 35% Conceptual desi Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140F0322R0004
About this file
This document includes a solicitation for architect-engineering design services and a past performance questionnaire. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks a firm to provide 35% conceptual design drawings, specifications, and an engineer's opinion of probable construction costs for a new Fish Technology Center in Rio Vista, California. The period of performance is one year from notice to proceed with an estimated contract award date of July 2022. Firms must submit Standard Form 330 responses by April 6, 2022. Evaluation criteria include past experience with water systems, governmental requirements, and technical experience on hatchery and construction projects over $10 million and $20 million. The service will evaluate submissions and select the most highly qualified firms for site visits and interviews to determine a highest ranked firm for negotiations and potential award of a firm-fixed price contract.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attach_2_-_USFWS_Delta_Smelt_FTC_Master_Plan_Final_20181009.pdf | ||
| Request_for_SF330_Submissions_for_140F0322R0004.doc | DOC document | |
| Attach_1_-_A_E_SOW_Rio_Vista_Fish_Technology_Center_12-20-21.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the number on the scale of 1 to 6 that most accurately describes the contractor's performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE
EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF 1 OR 2 IN THE “REMARKS” SECTION BELOW OR IN
A SEPARATE DOCUMENT.
1 2 3 4 5 6
UNSATISFACTORY MARGINAL SATISFACTORY VERY GOOD EXCEPTIONAL NEUTRAL
Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor's corrective actions were ineffective.
Performance did not meet some contractual requirements.
There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.
Performance met contractual requirements.
There may have been some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the government's benefit. There may have been a few minor problems, which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner.
Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the government's benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner.
No record of past performance or the record is inconclusive.
I. Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
2. Home office participated in solving significant local problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
3. Followed approved quality control plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
4. Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
5. Corrected deficiencies in timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
7. Identified problems as they occurred. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
8. Suggested alternative approaches to problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
9. Displayed initiative to solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
10. Developed realistic progress schedules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
11. Met established project schedules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
12. Was responsive to contract changes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
13. Provided adequate project supervision. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
14. Obtained consent of surety for increases in bonding as work-in-progress increased.
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
15. Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
16. Provided accurate and complete line item cost proposals including all aspects of work required for each task.
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
17. Cooperated with Government personnel after award. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
18. How would you rate the contractor's overall performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A
19. Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract?
If yes, explain outcome in "remarks."
YES/NO
20. Is the contractor rated in CPARS? YES/NO
21. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in "remarks” YES/NO
CONTRACTOR'S NAME:_____________________ CONTRACT NUMBER: _____________________
Remarks:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .