Attachment 13 Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

Attachment 13 – Past Performance Questionnaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Solicitation # AOCACB24R0128 Construction Management Multi-Award IDIQ

The company listed below is preparing a response for the above requirement for the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in Washington, DC. Your company has been selected as a previous user of the below listed company who would have information on its past performance under a contract awarded by your company. Your comments are considered Source Selection Sensitive;

therefore, please be advised that your response to this Past Performance Questionnaire will be safeguarded to the extent cited in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 42.1503. The FAR prohibits in part the release of past performance evaluations to other than Government personnel for use to evaluate source selection sensitive information.

This past performance questionnaire is being submitted to your company by the company listed below; however, you are requested to complete the form and return it directly to the AOC.

Please provide your responses directly to the Contract Specialist, Darwin Thomas. Send your response to this questionnaire via email to darwin.thomas@aoc.gov on or before the proposal Due Date as posted in public announcement AOCACB24R0128. While all elements in this questionnaire may not apply, please complete as much as possible.

Company Requesting Past Performance Information:

Name:

Past Project Title on Which the Company Is Being Evaluated:

Project Title:

Company Information/Point of Contact (POC) Providing Past Performance Information:

Company Name: Date:

Point of Contact Name:

Phone No.:

E-mail Address:

Address:

Position held or function in relation to project:

mailto:darwin.thomas@aoc.gov

Solicitation # AOCACB24R0128

Ratings: Please evaluate the contractor’s performance using the following ratings:

Substantial Confidence – The contractor exceeded all contract requirements with significant strengths identified in their performance, which would result in a high expectation of successful contract performance.

Satisfactory Confidence – The contractor met all contract requirements with some strengths identified in their performance, which would result in a reasonable expectation of successful contract performance.

Limited Confidence – The contractor met all contract requirements with few to no strengths or weaknesses identified in their performance, which would result in a limited expectation of successful contract performance.

No Confidence – The contractor did not meet all contract requirements with more weaknesses than strengths identified in their performance, which would result in no expectation of successful contract performance.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) – The contractor does not have recent or relevant past performance or the past performance record is so sparse that a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned.

Please rate and provide supporting information for the following questions. If the rating is Limited Confidence or No Confidence, please provide specific contract/job performance areas that were not performed in accordance with the requirements outlined in the contract. (Use additional sheets as needed).

1. How was the contractor’s performance in meeting delivery/completion schedules?

Rating:

2. What did the contractor do to improve or resolve scheduling problems?

3. How was the contractor’s quality control?

4. How was the contractor’s performance in delivering quality work in accordance with the contract?

5. Was the contractor able to provide the required work at a reasonable total price?

6. Did the contractor comply with labor standards?

7. Did the contractor comply with safety standards?

8. Was the contractor issued any of the following: Cure notice, show cause, letters of concern, reprimand, suspension of payments, or termination? If yes, please explain.

9. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If no, please state reasons.

10. Was the customer satisfied with the end product?

11. How was the relationship between the contractor’s team and the government’s team?

12. How was the contractor’s on-site management and coordination of subcontractors?

13. How was the contractor’s overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness and cooperative conduct?

14. Did the contractor request any modifications? If yes, how many and to what extent?

15. Has the contractor been provided an opportunity to discuss any negative performance ratings? If yes, what were the results?

16. OVERALL RATING:

17. Please provide any additional comments: