Attachment 3 MACC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE for Offeror.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 75N99027R00002
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form for contractor evaluation on a National Institutes of Health (NIH) solicitation. The form is designed to be completed by contractors and their references to assess past performance on related contracts and used to evaluate offerors' qualifications for the Multiple-Award Construction Contract (MACC) for General Construction Services solicitation (75N99027R00002).
The questionnaire requires contractors to provide company information, contractor representative details, and owner/client information for reference contracts. References are then asked to rate the contractor across five evaluation areas using a five-point scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or N/A): Quality of Work (including workmanship quality, quality control implementation, and timely deficiency corrections); Schedule Performance (schedule forecasting, delay resolution, and warranty response times); Effectiveness of Management (manager experience, communication, cost control, change order proposals, and coordination during occupancy/activation); Compliance with Regulatory Requirements (labor laws, safety plans, and timely correction of deficiencies); and an Overall Rating. Completed forms must be submitted by email to the NIH Contracting Officers, Clarion Miller and Magan Miller, at maccsolicitation@mail.nih.gov. The form serves as a source selection sensitive document for official use only in evaluating contractor past performance on the anticipated $3 billion, eight-year IDIQ construction contract vehicle.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
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
ATTACHMENT #3
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
Your organization has been identified for participation in past performance evaluation on a current solicitation at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at Bethesda, Maryland. This information contained in this questionnaire will be used to evaluate the past performance for the contractor and contracting action identified below.
Request for Proposal NIH
Your candid response to the questions is important to our evaluation effort and may affect the award outcome. Please indicate "Unknown" in any area that was not applicable to work performed on your contracting action.
THE COMPLETED FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Source Selection Sensitive Information—See FAR 2.101 & 3.104 Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)
Attachment 3– Past Performance Questionnaire - Offeror, Page 2 of 6
(Rev 09/26)
ATTN: Clarion Miller Contracting Officer (CO) National Institutes of Health Building 13, Room 2E48 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5711
Phone:
301-451-8464
E-mail:
maccsolicitation@mail.nih.gov
If you have any questions/ concerns pertaining to this survey and/or the requested information please contact Clarion Miller and Magan Miller, Contracting Officers, using the above contact information.
Thank you for your time and effort in completing this survey.
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE for offering Contractor
PART I – TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR
| Item |
| Requested Information |
| Information Provided by Contractor |
| A |
| Contractor Information |
Contractor Company Name
Contractor Representative Name
Title
Address
Telephone
Fax
E-mail Address
Contract Number
Task Order Number
Title of Contract
| B |
| Owner Information |
Owner/Company/ Organization/Agency Name
Owner Representative Name
Title
Address
Telephone
Fax
E-mail Address
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART II – TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR’S REFERENCE
DEFINITIONS
Please use the following definitions when completing the Past Performance Questionnaire:
| Rating |
| Description |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Clients benefit. The contractual performance of the element was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Clients benefit. The contractual performance of the element was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the 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. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| N/A |
| Performance was not observed. This indicates neither a favorable nor unfavorable rating. |
INSTRUCTIONS
Place a ‘rating’ in the appropriate column box using the definitions above.
| Item |
| How do you rate the Contractors...? |
Comments Please provide any comments to explain the rationale for the Rating to facilitate the Technical Evaluators in their review of the survey results. Please indicate if an item is not applicable to the representative project.
1 - Quality of Work (below are factors to consider)
Did the Contractor demonstrate an interest in the quality of workmanship of his personnel?
Did the contractor provide an adequate quality control plan and implement the plan with success?
When deficiencies were found, were they identified and corrected in a timely manner?
Item 1. Quality Rating here >
2 – Schedule Performance
What was the level of accuracy in forecasting and controlling schedules?
Were there any significant delays and if so was resolution taken care of in a timely manner?
Were warranty calls, if placed, answered in a timely manner?
Item 2. Schedule Rating here >
3 - Effectiveness of Management
Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.
How effective was the level of communications?
Was there effectiveness in forecasting and controlling costs?
Provided accurate and complete proposals and schedule impacts for all aspects of work required for each change order?
How would rate the level of coordination provided during the occupancy/activation process?
Item 3. Management Rating here>
4 – Compliance with Regulatory requirements
Were labor laws requirements such as payrolls properly completed and submitted?
Was the contractor’s safety plan adequate and was it implemented satisfactorily?
If regulatory deficiencies were found in labor, environmental or safety standards, were they corrected in a timely manner?
Item 4. Regulatory Rating here >
Item 5. Overall Rating here >
We are interested in knowing if you would recommend this contractor for similar requirements in the future plus any other comments below?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .