ATTACHMENT 6 - Contractor Performance Reference Sheet.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 72066823R00007
About this file
This document is a contractor performance reference sheet for Request for Proposals No. 72066823R00007 issued by the US Agency for International Development South Sudan. The RFP seeks design/build construction services for the USAID South Sudan Juba Resident Compound Kitchen Reconstruction Project in Juba, South Sudan. Offerors must have relevant past performance for evaluation. The reference sheet requests ratings on a scale of exceptional to unsatisfactory for quality of work, timeliness, cost control, business relations, and small business utilization from individuals providing references for offeror performance on prior contracts. Ratings and comments are due by July 22, 2023 to ksampson@usaid.gov and jlutyo@usaid.gov with the subject line "WWTP Project - [Name of Offeror]-Past Performance." The performance reference information will be used to evaluate offerors for the Juba RCK Project RFP.
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 6 - Contractor Performance Reference Sheet
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REFERENCE SHEET
USAID/South Sudan, Juba is seeking relevant past performance information for a USAID solicitation, RFP 72066823R00007 for which the selected offeror will provide design/build construction services for USAID South Sudan RCK Project at the US Embassy in Juba, South Sudan.
Please provide some brief feedback and select one of the ratings of the sub-criteria below. A table of the definitions for each of the ratings is included in the table provided on the last page of this letter.
Please respond by July 22, 2023, at 09:00 AM Juba, South Sudan Time, by sending this feedback directly to USAID South Sudan at ksampson@usaid.gov; and jlutyo@usaid.gov . Please label the email's Subject Line as “WWTP Project - [Name of Offeror]-Past Performance.”
If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to email the points of contact identified above.
Thanks for your time in responding. Your feedback is greatly appreciated in assisting the TEC in its evaluation process
1. Reference Information
Name of Individual Providing Reference Date Reference Provided Employer Activity Name e-mail Phone Begin Date End Date Dollar Value
2. Description of Scope of Work/Tasks [Please briefly describe the services the offeror provided]
3. Performance Information
1. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets.
Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments: Click here to enter text.
2. Please rate the timeliness of contract performance to include the schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements and ratings. Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
Comments: Click here to enter text.
4. Please rate the Contractor’s ability to control costs, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting and rating.
Comments: Click here to enter text.
4. Please rate the quality of business relations and overall management, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior: and rating.
Comments: Click here to enter text.
5. For prime offerors who are not small business concerns, please rate their utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors, including efforts in achieving small business participation goals and rating (use table in the appendix for definitions).:
Comments:
6. Please rate their regulatory compliance, such as reporting in accordance with contract terms and conditions, late or nonpayment to subcontractors, trafficking violations, tax delinquency, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, etc.
Comments:
RATING TABLE
| Adjective |
| Past Performance Definition |
| Exceptional |
| The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit. The company performed with very few or minor problems, for which corrective actions taken were, or are, expected to be highly effective. The performance of completed contracts was either consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance. |
| Very Good |
| The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The company performed with minor problems, for which corrective actions were or are expected to be effective. Performance of completed contracts was either consistently high quality or trending towards becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance. |
| Satisfactory |
| The offeror’s past performance of previously awarded relevant contracts met contractual requirements. The company performed with some problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance of completed contracts was consistently of adequate or better quality or exhibited a trend toward becoming so. The offerors past performance record leads to an expectation of successful performance. |
| Marginal |
| The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractor’s performance reflected some serious problems for which the contractor either failed to identify or implement corrective actions in a timely manner or for which the correctible actions implemented were, or are expected to be, only partially effective. Performance of completed contracts was consistently of mediocre quality or exhibited a trend toward becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an expectation that successful performance might be difficult to achieve or that it can occur only with increased levels of government management and oversight. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery, if any, did not occur within the stated period of performance. The contractor’s performance reflected serious problems for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions that were mostly ineffective. The performance of completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or a trend toward becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation that successful performance would not be achieved or that it can occur only with greatly increased levels of government management and oversight. |
| Neutral |
| The offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. Based on this, there is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .