Attachment 8 - Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 207 KB Posted

Attached to
Y1DZ--FY21: NRM Tier 2 (Proj: 546-17-113) Renovate and Expand Hemodialysis
Solicitation number
36C24821R0141
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal contract opportunity to expand and renovate the hemodialysis suite at the Bruce W. Carter VA Healthcare Center in Miami, Florida. The opportunity involves demolishing an existing suite area, installing new hemodialysis equipment and air conditioning systems, and completing related plumbing, electrical, and construction work. Interested parties must submit responses by June 21, 2021. The contract value is estimated between $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by references for an offeror, evaluating adherence to technical requirements, schedule, submittals, change orders, project management, team performance, willingness to hire the contractor again, and overall performance. It will be used to assess expectation of successful performance for the renovation opportunity being solicited by the Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 8.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
36C24821R0141 0002.pdf PDF
Site Visit Page 2.docx DOCX document
Site Visit Page 1.docx DOCX document
36C24821R0141 0001.pdf PDF
RFIs Log Hemodialysis.pdf PDF
Solicitation for 36C24821R0141.pdf PDF
Attachment 5 - Wage Determination.pdf PDF
Attachment 3 - Specifications Volume 2B.pdf PDF
Attachment 9 - EMR.docx DOCX document
Attachment 1 - Specifications Volume 1.pdf PDF
Attachment 4 - Drawings Complete Set.pdf PDF
Attachment 6 - LOS Certification.doc DOC document
Attachment 7 - Price Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment - 10 - Experience Information Sheet.docx DOCX document
Attachment 2 - Specifications Volume 2A.pdf PDF
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

TO BE COMPLETED BY REFERENCED CLIENT: Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to Apolinar Vargas, the requesting Contracting Officer at the following email addresses: apolinar .vargas@va.gov.

No later than the RFP closing date and time. 20 August 2021, @ 1:00 PM

Note: When sending back to Contract Specialist by email – ensure the following: Ensure Email Subject line is as follows: (Solicitation #36C24821R0141) , Company Name

Contract Number:

Project Title:

Contract Amount:

Contract Completion Date:

Contractor:

Rating scale is as follows: O=Outstanding, G=Good, S=Satisfactory, M=Marginal, U=Unsatisfactory, N=Neutral The full rating definitions are listed after the questionnaire for reference.

1. In regards to performance, how was the contractor’s adherence to technical requirements of the contract? O G S M U N

COMMENTS/REMARKS:

2. Was performance completed in accordance with planned progress schedule? (Note – Notwithstanding changes that are legitimate to extend performance.

O G S M U N mailto:apolinar%20.vargas@va.gov mailto:apolinar%20.vargas@va.gov

3. Were Material Submittals, Payrolls, Quality Control Plan, Safety Plans etc. submitted in a timely manner? O G S M U N

4. Does the contractor submit an excessive number of change orders or inundate the contract management team? O G S M U N

5. Was Project Management effective? (to include use and control of subcontractors)

6. How was the contractor’s team and rate how well they accomplished the project (to include use and control of subcontractors) O G S M U N

COMMENTS/REMARKS:

7. Would you hire this contractor again?

Yes No

8. How would you rate the contractor’s OVERALL PERFORMANCE?

Signature of Rater: ____________________________________ Date: ________________

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

Adjective Past performance definition Outstanding

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 very minor problems, for which corrective actions taken were, or are expected to be, highly effective. Performance of completed contracts was either consistently of the highest quality or exhibited a trend toward becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to an extremely strong expectation of successful performance.

Good requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. The company performed with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken were, or are expected to be, effective. Performance of completed contracts was either consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend toward becoming so. The offeror’s past performance record leads to a strong expectation of successful performance.

Satisfactory 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. The offeror’s 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, performance reflected some serious problems, for which the contractor either failed to identify or implemented corrective actions in a timely manner, or for which the corrective actions implemented or proposed to be 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 over sight.

Unsatisfactory

The offeror’s performance of previously awarded relevant contracts did not meet contractual requirements, and recovery, if any, did not occur within the period of performance. The contractor’s performance reflected serious problems for which the offeror either failed to identify or implement corrective actions were mostly ineffective. Performance of completed contracts was consistently of poor quality or exhibited a trend toward becoming so. The offeror’s past performance will 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 .