Attachment 1 - Past Performance Questionnaire.doc

Attachment 1- 140L0120R0008

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This file has 2 Parts:

1. Letter from the Contracting Officer

2. Past Performance Questionnaire

Instructions:

1. Complete the heading and paragraphs 1 through 4 of the questionnaire for each reference.

2. Send the letter and questionnaire via email to each reference/client/customer.

3. Include the Contracting Officer on the email: slstuart@blm.gov Offerors are encouraged to submit the attached cover letter and questionnaire to their references and request the return of the questionnaire to the Contracting Officer as soon as possible prior to the established closing date of the solicitation. Offerors will have to complete the heading and paragraphs 1 through 4 of the questionnaire for each reference.

MEMORANDUM FOR PROJECT OWNERS/REFERENCES

FROM:

Department of Interior

Bureau of Land Management Denver Federal Center (Attn: Sherry Stuart) Building 50, WO-855

Denver, CO 80225 SUBJECT: Request for Performance Information for Solicitation 140L0120R0008 You have been identified as a point of contact for a past and/or present performance evaluation of the firm listed on the attached questionnaire. We are currently evaluating this company for award of a contract for a project entitled, “Off-Range Corrals for ID, NV, and UT.”

It is requested that you complete the attached questionnaire providing detailed information on the performance history of the company identified.

It is essential that this office receive your official response not later than November 27, 2020. You may email your response to slstuart@blm.gov.

RETURN TO slstuart@blm.gov. Do NOT return completed questionnaire to the sender/subject company.

Sincerely, //s//

Sherry Stuart

Contracting Officer Enclosures:

Questionnaire, 2 Pages

Questionnaire Instructions, 2 Pages

1. Contractor Name, Address & Phone Number:

2. Contract Number(s):

3. Contract Value (Base plus Options):

4. Period of Performance:

5. Type of Contract(s) Used: (Check all that apply)

[ ]FP

[ ]FPI

[ ]CR

[ ]T&M

[ ]Labor Hour

[ ]8(a) [ ]Sealed Bid

[ ]Negotiated

[ ]TO/DO

[ ]SB Set-Aside [ ]Competitive

[ ]Non-Competitive

[ ]Requirements [ ]Supplies/Equipment

[ ]Services

[ ]Commercial Items

Acquisition

6. Description of Requirement:

7. Ratings: After commenting, score, in column to the right, using 1 for Unsatisfactory, 2 for Marginal, 3 for

Satisfactory, 4 for Very Good and 5 for Exceptional. (See page 4 for explanation of rating scale.) (Circle)

1-U

2-M

3-S

4-VG

5-E

1-U

2-M

3-S

2-M

3-S

2-M

3-S

Total Score (Sum of scores from each area)

Mean Score (Sum of scores divided by total number of areas

8. Subcontractors, Teaming and Joint Venture Partners. List major subcontractors, teams and joint venture partners, by names, with a brief description of work and names of key personnel.

Subcontractor, Team or Joint Venture

Description of Work

Key Personnel

9. Would you select this firm again? [ ]Yes [ ]No

Comments:

10. Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?

Comments:

11. Respondent’s Identification:

Name:

Position/Title:

Address & Phone Number:

Relationship and Time Involved with Program/Contract:

Date of Evaluation:

Block 1:

Name, address and phone number of the contract being evaluated. Identify the specific division being evaluated if there is more than one.

Block 2:

Contract number(s) used to evaluate performance.

Block 3:

Contract value, including option periods. The value in this block should reflect any increases or decreases affected during the life of the contract.

Block 4:

Dates in which the contractor being evaluated performed work for the evaluator.

Block 5:

Check all blocks that apply to contracts with the contractor being evaluated.

Block 6:

Brief description of the work performed by the contractor.

Block 7:

Indicate the contractor’s rating in the far right column. In the comment areas, provide rationale for the rating. Indicate the contract requirements that were exceeded (when a value of 5 is given) and those that were not met (when a value of 1 or 2 is given) by the contractor. Also calculate the total and mean scores for the ratings.

Block 8:

Identify major subcontractors, team partners and joint ventures and include their work responsibilities. List key personnel employed during the contract that played a major role in the performance rating. Do not list key personnel not employed long enough to effect performance. In some cases, more than one individual may have served in a key position.

Block 9:

Explain why you would or would not select the contractor for this contract again.

Block 10:

State your opinion as to whether or not the contractor is committed to customer satisfaction.

Block 11:

Provide your vital information as requested.

RATING GUIDELINES

Use the following instructions as guidance in making evaluations.

QUALITY

COST CONTROL

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

BUSINESS RELATIONS/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

-Compliance with contract requirements

-Accuracy of reports

-Appropriateness of personnel

-Technical excellence

-Within budget (over/under target costs)

-Current, complete and accurate billings

-Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals

-Costs efficiencies

-Change orders issued -Met interim milestones

-Reliable

-Responsive to technical direction

-Completed on time, including wrap-up and contract administration

-No liquidated damages assessed -Effective management

-Business-like correspondence

-Responsive to contract requirements

-Prompt notification of problems

-Reasonable/cooperative

-Flexible, pro-active, effective

-Recommended viable solutions

-Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program

1-UNSATISFACTORY

-Most performance requirements are not met; recovery not likely

-Significant cost overruns; not likely to recover cost control

-Many late deliveries; negative cost impact/loss of capability for Government

-Delinquent responses

-Lack of cooperative spirit

-Unsatisfied user; unable to improve relations

-Significantly under subcontracting goals

-Excessive, unnecessary change proposals to correct poor management

-Significantly untimely definitization of change proposals

2-MARGINAL

-Some performance requirements are not met; performance reflects serious problem

-Ineffective corrective actions

-Did not meet cost/price estimates

-Inadequate corrective action plans

-No innovative techniques to bring overall expenditures within limits

-Some late deliveries; no corrective actions

-Unprofessional

-Low responsiveness

-Low user satisfaction; no attempts to improve relations

-Unsuccessful in meeting subcontracting goals

-Unnecessary change proposals

-Untimely definitizations

3-SATISFACTORY

-Met all performance requirements

-Minor problems with satisfactory corrective actions

-Met overall cost/price estimates while meeting all contract requirements

-On-time deliveries

-Minor problems which did not effect delivery schedule

-Professional and responsive

-Met expectations

-Adequate user satisfaction

-Met subcontracting goals

-No untimely change proposals

4-VERY GOOD

-Met all performance requirements and exceeded them by 5% or more

-Reduction in overall cost/price while meeting all contract requirements

-On-time delivery/some early deliveries to the Government’s benefit

-Professional and responsive

-Exceeded expectations and user satisfaction

-Exceeded subcontracting goals

- Timely response to change proposals

5-EXCEPTIONAL

-Met all performance requirements and exceeded them by 20% or more

-Significant reductions while meeting all contract requirements

- Use of value engineering or other innovative management techniques which facilitated cost reductions

-On-time deliveries with many early deliveries to the Government’s benefit

-Highly professional, responsive and proactive

-Significantly exceeded expectations

-High user satisfaction

-Significantly exceeded subcontracting goals

-Timely response to change proposals