Attach C- Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Savannah River Site- Facilities IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 12445225R0045
- Issued by
- Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
The document is a Past Performance Questionnaire, a standardized form designed to evaluate a contractor's performance across multiple dimensions. The questionnaire provides a comprehensive rating system from "Exceptional" (5) to "Unsatisfactory" (1) across five key performance areas: Quality of Product/Service, Cost Control, Schedule, Management/Business Relations, and Regulatory Compliance. Evaluators are asked to rate the contractor's performance on specific subcategories within each area and provide overall comments, with a final recommendation on whether they would select the firm for similar future work.
The related federal contract opportunity is a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) solicitation (No. 12445225R0045) issued by the Department of Agriculture Forest Service for Savannah River Site Facility Construction, Maintenance & Repair. The contract is a Total Small Business Set Aside for construction-trade projects, with a NAICS code of 236220, focusing on new construction or renovation work on buildings, restrooms, pavilions, docks/piers, and administrative buildings. The contract will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP), and RFI questions are due by October 10, 2025, to be submitted via email to keisha.robinson@usda.gov.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
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
“Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”
Attachment C.
Past Performance Questionnaire Contractor Information:
Firm Name:
Point of Contact at the Firm:
POC Phone Number:
POC Email:
| Project Information: |
| Contract/Task Order Number: |
Project Title:
Project Description:
Project Location:
Award Date:
Completion Date:
Actual Completion Date:
Explain Difference:
Original Contract Price:
Final Contract Price:
Explain Difference:
CLIENT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR
Client Information:
Business/Organization Name:
Point of Contact for the Client:
Title:
Phone Number:
Email:
Point of Contact’s Role in the Project:
Date Questionnaire Completed:
Client’s Signature:
Rating Scale:
EXCEPTIONAL
(5) Performance EXCEEDS MOST contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.
VERY GOOD
(4) Performance EXCEEDS SOME contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns, for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were highly effective.
SATISFACTORY
(3) Performance MEETS contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.
MARGINAL
(2) Performance MEETS SOME contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed includes significant problems, issues, or concerns for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were only somewhat effective.
UNSATISFACTORY
(1) Performance DOES NOT MEET contractual requirement. The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
| NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) |
| Performance information not recent or relevant as defined in the Solicitation. Unable to provide assessment. |
Quality of Product or Service:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Quality of Deliverable (Met Specifications)
Conformance to good standards of workmanship
Adequacy of the QC Plan
Implementation of the QC Plan
Quality of QC Documentation
Identification/Correction of Deficient Work
Adequacy of Submittals
Use of Specified Materials
Comments:
Cost Control:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)
Were invoices current, accurate, and complete
Reasonableness of price change proposals submitted
Proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client
Comments:
Schedule:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Adequacy of Initial Schedule
Adherence to Approved Schedule
Resolution of Delays
Timely submission of Required Documentation
Timely submission of Updated and Revised Schedules
Comments:
Management / Business Relations:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Management of Resources/Personnel
Key Personnel were Utilized Appropriately and Effectively
Coordination and Control of Subcontractors
Professional Conduct
Review/Resolution of Subcontractor’s Issues
Change Order Activity (By Contractor)
Maintains an Adequate Work Force
Responsiveness to Corrective Actions
Identifies and Mitigates Risk
Comments:
Regulatory Compliance:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Complied With Contract Clause Requirements
Complied With Reporting Requirements
Complied With Design Requirements
Compliance With Labor Laws And Regulations
Complied With Safety Laws And Regulations
Correction Of Noted Deficiencies
Comments:
Overall Rating:
| N/A |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
Overall Rating
Comments:
Recommendation
| Given what you know today about the contractor’s ability to perform the work required, would you recommend the selection of this firm for similar requirements in the future? |
| Would |
| Would Not |
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .