ATTACH 6_Past Performance Questi.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 1240LT22R0023
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal contract opportunity involving the replacement of a trail bridge on the Payette National Forest. The questionnaire requests ratings on a contractor's technical performance, timeliness, quality, business behavior, cost control, and an overall rating on a scale of Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. It also asks if the evaluator would do business with the contractor again. The related federal contract opportunity involves the design, purchase, delivery and installation of a 60-foot prefabricated steel truss trail bridge and two precast concrete grade beams at a remote site requiring helicopter transport. Bidders must coordinate bridge component weights with helicopter lift capacity. Responses to the past performance questionnaire are due by March 15, 2022 and will be used for source selection for solicitation number 1240LT22R0023 issued by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| GWLS-Geoweb-load-support-csi-spec.doc | DOC document | |
| Amendment 1.pdf | ||
| Q AND A.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACH 2_Jenkins plans.pdf | ||
| ATTACH 3_Jenkins Crossing Bridge Project_Aviation for contractors.pdf | ||
| ATTACH 5_Determination of Responsibility.pdf | ||
| 1240LT22R0023.pdf | ||
| ATTACH 1_Jenkins Crossing Specs.pdf | ||
| ATTACH 4_Wage Determination.pdf |
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 1240LT22R0023
Please complete this Questionnaire and email as an attachment to Tanya Spanfellner;
tanya.spanfellner@usda.gov
Response date: MARCH 15, 2022
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 .