ATTACHMENT 8 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 1282B125R0003
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template that will be used for evaluating contractors bidding on a Forest Service Region 2 Road Maintenance and Forest Maintenance/Support Services contract. The questionnaire requires contractors to provide details about previous work, including contract value, duration, location, and completion status, with responses to be submitted to Contract Specialist Traci Jackson at USDA.
The evaluation portion includes ratings from Outstanding to Unsatisfactory across multiple performance categories including quality, schedule compliance, client satisfaction, management effectiveness, cost/financial performance, and safety. The questionnaire emphasizes confidentiality of respondents per FAR 15.306(e)(4) and requires references to evaluate contractors on specific criteria such as ability to meet quality standards, problem-solving effectiveness, schedule management, end-user satisfaction, and overall contract compliance. The form concludes with a yes/no question about future willingness to work with the contractor and space for additional remarks.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF30 1282B125R0003 A0004.pdf | ||
| SF30 1282B125R0003 A0003.pdf | ||
| SF30 1282B125R0003 A0002.pdf | ||
| 1282B125R0003.pdf | ||
| 1282B125R0003 QA 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| SF 30 A00001.pdf | ||
| Solicitation_Update_20241218.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 5 R2RM_SOI_for_TOPRs_Under 100k_20241127.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT 3 R2RM_Service Specs_20241203.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT 4 R2RM_AdminUnitsTable_20241127.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT 2 R2RM_SOI_MATOC_Proposal_20241127.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1282B125R0003.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT 7 FORM Equipment Cleaning Inspection Form_20241203.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT 1 WAGE DETERMINATION ARAPAHOE CO.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT 6 R2RM_SOI_for_TOPRs_Over 100k_20241127.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
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
Past Performance Questionnaire
We have listed your firm as a reference for the work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm will be submitting a proposal under a project advertised by the United States Forest Service, Region 2. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), the government will evaluate our firm's past performance. Your candid response to the questions below will assist the government evaluation team in this process. Please complete the questions below as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided at the end for additional comments. Only one response is required.
Please return your completed questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Traci Jackson, at traci.jackson@usda.gov.
This documentation must arrive NOT LATER THAN [Contractor to enter date] so that it can be evaluated with our proposal.
If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist at traci.jackson@usda.gov. Thank you for your assistance.
ITEMS 1-10 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR:
1. Contractor Name (Offeror):
2. Client or Customer Name and POC:
3. Project Name:
4. Contract Number (if applicable):
5. Contract Value:
6. Description of work performed:
7. Was work performed as a prime or subcontractor?
8. Approximate duration of the project (weeks or days):
9. Project location:
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 For Official Use Only
10. Date project completed (if not yet complete list percent completed):
THE FOLLOWING TO BE SENT TO AND COMPLETED BY THE CLIENT:
Please note that while the responses to this questionnaire may be released to the offeror, FAR 15.306(e)(4) prohibits the release of the names of the persons providing the responses.
Complete confidentiality will be maintained.
Ratings:
· Outstanding (O): Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.
· Very Good (VG): Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Client’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
· Satisfactory (S): Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
· Marginal (M): Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
· Unsatisfactory (U): Performance does not meet the contractual requirements and correction or recovery is not likely. Contractor corrective actions were ineffective.
· Not Applicable (NA): No information or did not apply to your contract.
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE THAT BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
QUALITY
| Ability to meet the quality standards specified in the contract |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| Timeliness/effectiveness of solving contract problems |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control and adherence to quality assurance requirements |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
SCHEDULE
| Compliance with contract delivery requirements and use of resources to manage contract schedule |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
CLIENT SATISFACTION
| Extent to which the client/end user was satisfied by the final product |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| Extent to which the contractor was cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
MANAGEMENT
| Effectiveness of on-site management, including subcontractors and material suppliers |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| Knowledge and expertise demonstrated by contractor staff |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
| Ability to incorporate changes or modifications that arose during project execution |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
COST/FINANCIAL
| Contractor’s ability to perform within the contractually agreed to pricing |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
SAFETY
| Contractor’s ability to maintain a safe working environment and effectiveness in responding to any safety issues |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
GENERAL
| Compliance with contract terms and conditions |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
Would you hire or work with this contractor again?
| YES |
| NO |
| In summary the overall rating for the work performed |
| O |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
Please add any additional remarks as needed here (add up to one additional page):
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .