ATTACHMENT 6 PPQ 36C25525R0041.docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Z2DA--657-21-117JB, Correct Deficiencies Identified During Triennial Testing Phase 2 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C25525R0041
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template for solicitation #36C25525R0041 related to construction services to correct deficiencies identified during triennial testing at the Jefferson Barracks Division of the St. Louis VA Medical Center. The questionnaire must be returned to Jennifer.Hill@va.gov.
The PPQ requires information about the contractor (as prime, sub, or joint venture), contract details including pricing, and performance ratings across 11 categories using a 5-point scale from Outstanding (O) to Unacceptable (U). Key evaluation areas include working relationships, professionalism, responsiveness, project management, communication, quality control, value added contributions, on-time/on-budget delivery, and overall performance. The form requires specific justification for any Outstanding or Unacceptable ratings and includes a yes/no question about willingness to award future contracts to the contractor being evaluated.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C25525R0041 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| IMG_2523 MDP-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_2529 ATS-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| 657-21-117JB - Ph 2 pre-proposal attendance roster 3-5-2025.pdf | ||
| IMG_2532 2 MSB-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_2533 MSB-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_2521 MDP-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| Prebid questions 657-21-117JB Phase 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| IMG_2518 MDP-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_2528 ATS-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_2534 MSB-51A.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| PreProposal Conference Site Visit Agenda 657-21-117JB Phase 2.pdf | ||
| 852.219-75 VA NOTICE OF LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING_CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION.docx | DOCX document | |
| 657-21-117JB Transformer and B 51 - Drawings.pdf | ||
| 657-21-117JB - Specs COMBINED.pdf | ||
| P09 SoW_657-21-117JB - Phase 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C25525R0041_1.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 17
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
ATTACHMENT 6 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
36C25525R0041, PROJECT #657-21-117JB, Correct Deficiencies Identified During Triennial Testing Phase 2
****Return to Jennifer.Hill@va.gov***
1. Contractor Information
Firm Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Point of Contact:
Contact Phone Number:
DUNs Number:
2. Work Performed as: |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub Contractor |_| Joint Venture |_| Other
Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: |_| Firm Fixed Price |_| Cost Reimbursement |_| Other (Please specify):
Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Project Description:
Complexity of Work |_| High |_| Med |_| Routine Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Differences:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):
Explain Differences:
Rating: Please evaluate the past performance using only the following ratings without variation. DO NOT RATE ON A “+” OR “- “SCALE. If a “+” or “- “is used, the rating without the "+" or "-" will be applied. In addition to the ratings, please provide a short narrative in the appropriate block or in the remarks section of this form.
| “O” |
| Outstanding |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were highly effective. |
| “A” |
| Above Average |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were effective. |
| “S” |
| Satisfactory |
| The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were satisfactory. |
| “M” |
| Marginal |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. Performance indicated that there are some potential risks associated with the quality products, timeliness of service, and contract performance. |
| “U” |
| Unacceptable |
| Performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the offeror has yet to identify corrective actions or the offeror’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
NOTE: Any rating of Outstanding or Unacceptable must include sufficient details to support the rating.
Please rate and provide any supporting information/comments for the following:
| 1. The quality of the working relationship with the client (the tenant and/ or owner). |
| O A S M U |
| 2. The professionalism and integrity with which offeror conducted business. |
| O A S M U |
3. The responsiveness to the client’s needs and expectations.
O A S M U
| 4. The Offeror’s ability to successfully management and perform the project. |
| O A S M U |
| 5. The offeror’s level of communication. |
| O A S M U |
| 6. The quality control of the project. |
| O A S M U |
7. Any Value added to the project as the result of cost savings, favorable financing, positive asset management, etc.
Yes No
| 8. Would you award another contact to the party being evaluated? If no, please explain. |
| Yes No |
| 9. The delivery of the project within the budget and on schedule. |
| O A S M U |
10. Other relevant aspects in the management of a project development for the client.
| 11. Overall rating for this firm: |
| O A S M U |
Signature of Evaluator
Date
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .