Attachment_3__Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf
PDF 316 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OLD NORTH CHURCH CRYPT RESTORATION
- Solicitation number
- 140P2122R0004
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluation of contractors for the Old North Church Crypt Restoration project in Boston, Massachusetts. The National Park Service seeks to restore the Old North Church Crypt and is soliciting past performance evaluations from references to select the best contractor. Respondents are asked to evaluate contractors on quality, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory compliance for prior similar projects. References must complete and return the questionnaire by March 3rd, 2022 to aid in contractor selection for the restoration work, which includes all labor, materials, equipment and travel. The project location is the Old North Church in Boston, with an unspecified awarded contract price.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
The National Service is currently in the process of selecting a Contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment and travel necessary for completion of the Restoration of the Old North
Church Crypt in Boston, Massachusetts.
As required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at Paragraph 12.606, Offeror’s past performance history will play an important role in determining which Contractor will receive the contract.
As someone with first-hand knowledge of the past performance history pertaining to one of the competitors for this project, your participation is essential. The National Park Service depends on your critical evaluation of the prospective Contractor’s performance to ensure we are obtaining the best value for your tax dollars.
The acquisition schedule is extremely tight; therefore, we need your written response before
March 3, 2022. To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, we have formulated the attached questionnaire highlighting the areas of primary interest to the National
Park Service.
The questionnaire may be filled out by hand and emailed to the attention of Michael Clarke at michael_clarke@nps.gov.
If you have any questions concerning completion of the attached questionnaire, please contact the undersigned at (240) 397-3485.
//SIGNED//
Sheila E. Rushlow
Contracting Officer
1 Attachment – Past Performance Questionnaire
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS: Offeror to complete Sections A and B and transmit questionnaire to reference.
Reference to complete Sections C and D and transmit back to Contracting Officer listed in section E.
A. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Company Name Company
Street Address Address
City City
State State
Zip Code XXXXX
DUNS Number XXXXXXX
Point of Contact Name, Email, Phone
B. CONTRACT INFORMATION
Project Title Title
Contract Number XXXXXXXXXX
Contract Type Firm Fixed Price / Time & Materials / Cost Reimbursable / Other
Awarded Contract Price $X,XXX,XXX
Current / Final Price $X,XXX,XXX
Contract Award Date XX/XX/XXXX
Contract Completion Date XX/XX/XXXX
Period of Performance XX/XX/XXX – XX/XX/XXX
Project Location Park or Street address, City, State
Client / Owner Company
Brief description of the contract & work effort:
Scope of work description
C. REFERENCE:
Name First, Last
Position / Title Title
Organization Agency or Company
Phone Number XXX-XXX-XXXX
Email Address Email
Signature Signature
Date XX/XX/XXXX
D. EVALUATION
Rating Definition
Exceptional
Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Very Good
Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory Performance met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
Evaluation Area Rating
Quality
Quality of workmanship (including subcontracts)? Choose an item.
Quality of and adherence to quality control? Choose an item.
Quality of informational and technical submittals? Choose an item.
Overall Quality Rating Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Schedule & Time Management)
Met project schedule milestones and maintained the schedule? Choose an item.
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner? Choose an item.
Informational and technical deliverables submitted timely? Choose an item.
Promptly addressed scheduling issues? Choose an item.
Overall Schedule (& Time Management) Rating Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, Cost Control
Meet the contract cost or stay within the fixed-price cost? Choose an item.
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications? Choose an item.
Submitted accurate and complete invoices? Choose an item.
Promptly paid subconsultants? Choose an item.
Overall Cost Control Rating Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, Management
General oversight and effective communication by project manager with subcontractors, Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) on problems solving and recommending solutions and shows initiative in overcoming obstacles?
Choose an item.
Coordination with and control of subconsultants in achieving timely performance, relaying quality control concerns, and working with subcontractors to correct deficiencies and resolve problem areas?
Choose an item.
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives? Met your working relationship expectations (e.g. ease of working with, flexible in accommodating program adjustments, reasonable/cooperative behavior, businesslike concerns for your interest, etc.)?
Choose an item.
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems? Choose an
Overall Management Rating Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, Regulatory Compliance
Met building and life safety codes? Choose an item.
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating Choose an item.
Overall Recommendation:
Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar contracts:
Choose an
Overall Comments:
E. RETURN:
Return by On or before March 3, 2022, 12:00 p.m, Eastern Standard Time
Name Michael Clarke
Title Contract Specialist
Organization National Park Service – WCO/Historic Preservation Training Center
Email michael_clarke@nps.gov
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .