Attachment_20_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 300 KB Posted

Attached to
PECO EXHIBIT FABRICATION Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2121R0057
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service

About this file

This document contains templates for past performance questionnaires to be completed as part of a solicitation for a museum interpretive exhibit fabrication contract with the National Park Service. The performance rating form collects information on the offeror's technical performance, understanding of requirements, use of resources, timeliness, quality and customer satisfaction, business practices, communication abilities, and cost control on previous similar contracts. It also asks if the reference would engage in business with the offeror again. The supplemental comment form provides space for additional comments on the performance element ratings. The related federal contract opportunity is for exhibit fabrication services at Pecos National Historical Park through the Department of the Interior National Park Service.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to PECO EXHIBIT FABRICATION, newest first.
File Type Posted
Sol_140P2121R0057_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
Attachment_11b_PECO_VC_Production_Documents_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_1_Exhibit_Planning_Design_and_Fabrication_Specifications_2020.pdf PDF
Attachment_9_Art_Documentation_Form.pdf PDF
Attachment_6_Component_Inventory_Schedule_Form_2018.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment_5_National_Park_Service_Standard_Specifications_for_Planning_Design_Production_and_Installation_of_Electronic_Programs_2018.pdf PDF
Attachment_4_Programmatic_Accessibility_Guidelines_for_National_Park_Service_Interpretive_Media_version_2_4.pdf PDF
Attachment_19_PECO_Cost_Estimate_Form.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment_18_PECO_TP_Database_Reports_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_15_PECO_TP_Production_Documents_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_12_PECO_VC_Reference_Package_April_2021.pdf PDF
Sol_140P2121R0057.pdf PDF
Attachment_16_PECO_TP_Reference_Package_April_2021_Rev.pdf PDF
Attachment_13b_PECO_VC_Graphic_Layouts_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_3_Architectural_Barriers_Act_(ABA)_Standards_2015.pdf PDF
Attachment_13a_PECO_VC_Graphic_Layouts_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_17_PECO_TP_Graphic_Layouts_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_7_Component_Inventory_Sample_2018.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment_14_PECO_VC_Database_Reports_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_11a_PECO_VC_Production_Documents_April_2021.pdf PDF
Attachment_10_Descriptive_Exhibit_Tour_Installation_Equipment_Guide_2020.pdf PDF
Attachment_8_AV_Completion_Report_2019.pdf PDF
Show all 22

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

Solicitation 140P1121R0057 – Attachment 20

Past Performance Questionnaire

The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for Museum Interpretive Exhibit Fabrication contract . As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.

Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED

CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER/CUSTOMER 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/

SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR

Performance Element Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Other

Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

(For example: 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 / Customer Satisfaction

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7. COMMUNICATION

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

(For example: 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?)

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate YES NO

9. 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. Please add additional pages as necessary.

Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED
Performance Element
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate
Text1:
Text2:
Text3:
Text4:
Text5:
Text6:
Text7:
Text8:
Text9:
Text10:
Check Box11: Off
Check Box12: Off
Check Box13: Off
Check Box14: Off
Check Box15: Off
Check Box16: Off
Check Box17: Off
Check Box18: Off
Check Box19: Off
Check Box20: Off
Check Box21: Off
Check Box22: Off
Check Box23: Off
Check Box24: Off
Check Box25: Off
Check Box26: Off
Check Box27: Off
Check Box28: Off
Check Box29: Off
Check Box30: Off
Check Box31: Off
Check Box32: Off
Check Box33: Off
Check Box34: Off
Check Box35: Off
Check Box36: Off
Check Box37: Off
Check Box38: Off
Check Box39: Off
Check Box40: Off
Check Box41: Off
Check Box42: Off
Check Box43: Off
Check Box44: Off
Text45:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .