Attachment_6_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CATO - FY26 HAZARD TREE PKG 1
- Solicitation number
- 140P2126Q0036
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template used by the Department of the Interior National Park Service to evaluate contractor performance during the proposal evaluation process for the CATO FY26 Hazard Tree Package 1 solicitation (140P2126Q0036). The questionnaire is classified as source selection sensitive and restricted to the evaluation team only.
The form captures contract identification information including the consultant/contractor name, project type, period of performance, initial and final project costs with explanations for variances, scope of work, and evaluator details. The core evaluation component uses a five-point rating scale (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable, and Neutral/Not Observed) to assess consultant performance across two primary categories: Technical Performance and Management Approach. Technical Performance ratings address the ability to accomplish technical requirements, meet project schedules, and provide quality data and analyses. Management Approach ratings evaluate project management effectiveness, personnel cooperation, problem resolution, workforce qualification and retention, subcontractor management, and quality control. The questionnaire allows for up to two additional pages of supplemental information and serves as a tool for past performance evaluation rather than a statement of work or service requirement document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| B09_-_CATO_post_site_visit_questions_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140P2126Q0036_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| B09_-_Attachment_8_PWS_amendment_1_-_1-29-26_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140P2126Q0036.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_QUALIFICATIONS_FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2_Maps.pdf | ||
| Attachment_8_Performance_Work_Statement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_Firewood_Photos.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_7_-_B08_Pricing_Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_3_Table_CATO_FY26_Haz_Tree_FINAL.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_1_Wage_Determination_2015-4269_Revision_31_12-3-25.pdf |
Show all 11
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
When completed, this document is source selection sensitive and the Service will use it only for evaluation of this proposal and not share it outside of the evaluation team.
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
Consultant Name (Enter the name of the company being evaluated in this questionnaire)
Project Type (Define if the project was standalone or part of an overall contract.)
Period of Project Performance
Initial Project Cost
Final Project Cost
Reason(s) for Differences Between Initial Project Cost and Final Project Cost Shown Above:
Scope of Work Performed or Description of Services Provided
Evaluator Information (Information pertaining to individual completing this questionnaire.)
Name
Title
Phone
Fax
Number of Months Worked on Contract
SECTION 2: QUALITY OF CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE
Use the following rating scale to indicate your satisfaction with the consultant’s performance in the specified areas by placing an “X” in the appropriate block.
RATING CODE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
| 5 |
| OUTSTANDING, |
| Performance meets project objectives and exceeds many objectives. The consultant completed the project with a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the consultant were highly effective. |
| 4 |
| Good |
| Performance meets project objectives and exceeds some objectives. The consultant completed the project with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the consultant were effective. |
| 3 |
| Acceptable |
| Performance meets project objectives. The consultant’s completion of the project contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the consultant appear, or were satisfactory. |
| 2 |
| Marginal |
| Some system performance requirements are met; some system operational requirements are met; substantial customer intervention required |
| 1 |
| Unacceptable |
| Performance fails to meet one or more project objectives and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the consultant on the project contained serious problems for which the consultant’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective. |
| N |
| Neutral |
| Not Observed Under This Project / Unable to Provide a Rating |
Technical Performance
| O |
| G |
| A |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Ability to accomplish project technical requirements and implement high quality standards
Ability to meet project schedule
Quality/Integrity of technical data, reports and analyses provided for project
Management Approach
| O |
| S |
| M |
| P |
| U |
| N |
Effectiveness of overall project/program management (including ability to lead/manage/control the project effort)
Reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your personnel
Timeliness/effectiveness of project problem resolution
Understood/complied with your objectives and technical requirements
Ability to hire and provide a highly qualified workforce
Ability to retain quality personnel
Managed subcontractors effectively
Effectively performed quality control/quality check on subcontractor deliverables
You may provide more information on additional pages, not to exceed 2 pages.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .