Attachment 9- Past Performance Survey.docx

DOCX document 28 KB Posted

Attached to
MMAC Quesada Gate Upgrade Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
6973GH-23-R-00003
Issued by
Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Franchise Acquisition Services

About this file

This document includes a past performance survey template and details for a federal contract opportunity for gate upgrade work at an aeronautical center. The opportunity is a full and unrestricted competition under NAICS code 236220 for commercial and institutional building construction. The contract will be an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity agreement with a one year period of performance after notice to proceed. The work location is the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Offerors must submit past performance surveys from a minimum of three to a maximum of five previous or ongoing similar projects valued at or over $1.5 million completed within the last five years. The surveys are due by the closing date of January 31, 2023. The Federal Aviation Administration will evaluate proposals and reserves the right to communicate with offerors during the solicitation process.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to MMAC Quesada Gate Upgrade, newest first.
File Type Posted
Attachment 1-Section B - Supplies or Services-Prices_Revision 1.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
19-035334 ADDENDUM 2 COVER.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003-0004.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003-0003.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003-00002.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003 Questions and Answers_1.31.23.pdf PDF
Attachment 12 - Quesada Gate REVISION 1 DRAWINGS.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003-0001.pdf PDF
6973GH-23-R-00003.pdf PDF
Attachment 4a - 19-035334 Quesada SPECS Volume I Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 4b -19-035334 Quesada SPECS Volume II Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 5 - SF 25 Performance Bond.pdf PDF
Attachment 10 - Client Authorization Letter.docx DOCX document
Attachment 3a -19-035334 Quesada DWGS Volume I Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 3d - 19-035334 Quesada DWGS Volume III Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 7 - WD OK049.pdf PDF
Attachment 8 - Past Performance Experience Form.docx DOCX document
Attachment 1-Section B - Supplies or Services-Prices.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment 2-SOW 19-035334 Quesada Gate Upgrade.pdf PDF
Attachment 3b - 19-035334 Quesada DWGS Volume II_Pt-1 Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 3c - 19-035334 Quesada DWGS Volume II_Pt-2 Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 3e - 19-035334 Quesada DWGS Volume IV Pkg A.pdf PDF
Attachment 6 - SF Payment Bond.pdf PDF
Attachment 11 - Contractor Release.pdf PDF
Show all 24

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SIR/RFO No. 6973GH-22-R-00063

MMAC PV SYSTEM QUESADA DRIVE WEST

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

To: _______________________________________________________________________ NAME Title

Organization:_____________________________________________________________

Fax No.: _________________________ E-mail Address:_________________________

Phone No.:________________________

Date: __________________________ Number of Pages (including this sheet): 5 in total

Your name was provided as a point of contact for the following:

Contractor Name:_______________________________________________________

Contract Number: _______________________________

Project Title: ___________________________________________________________

In regard to the above contractor’s performance on the referenced contract, please complete the attached Past Performance Survey and return as follows:

Send to: Elizabeth Fikes, Contracting Officer

E-mail Address: Elizabeth.A.Fikes@faa.gov

For questions, please contact me at telephone 405-954-7869.

Please provide your response no later than March XX, 2022 3:00 p.m. CT

Thank you!

Offeror to complete this page:

1. Name of Contractor: ____________________________________________________

2. Provide a brief description of the renovation project and how it is relevant to the HQB Building Lobby Remodel; e.g., multi-story office, single story office building, hospital, school, warehouse, square footage?

3. Type of contract; e.g., firm fixed-price, cost-reimbursable: __________________________________________

4. Contractor Role (circle one):

Prime Contractor, Mechanical Subcontractor, Electrical Subcontractor, Pool Subcontractor

5. Contract Number (if applicable): _______________________________________________

6. Total Contract Amount - Original contract amount: $____________ Final Contract Amount: $_____________ Provide rationale for the difference________________________________________________________

7. Date of Contract Award: ______________________________________________________

8. Contract Period of Performance: Start Complete _________________

9. Was project completion date consistent with the contract completion date? ___________ If no, explain why___________________________________________________________________________________.

10. Was a deficiency notice issued? ___________ If so, was the issue successfully resolved? ___________

11. Was a Cure Notice issued? _____________ If so, was the issue successfully resolved? _____________

12. Was a Show Cause issued? _____________ If so, was the issue successfully resolved? _____________

Name of Responding Point of Contact: _____________________________________________________

Agency/Organization: _________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address: __________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: __________________________________

E-mail Address: __________________________________ Customer to complete the following pages:

A five level assessment rating system will be used for the following questions as defined below:

Rating
Definition
Exceptional
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The category being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Very Good
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The category being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The category being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were satisfactory.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The category being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.
Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The category being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

1. Quality of Project.

a. How would you rate the quality of the project?

Exceptional( )
Very Good( )
Satisfactory( )
Marginal( )
Unsatisfactory( )

NOTE: If you provide a rating above or below “Satisfactory” you will need to document your rationale for the use of your rating.

2. Scheduling of Project.

a. How would you rate the scheduling of the project?

Exceptional( )
Very Good( )
Satisfactory( )
Marginal( )
Unsatisfactory( )

NOTE: If you provide a rating above or below “Satisfactory” you will need to document your rationale for the use of your rating.

3. Cost Control of Project Modifications.

a. How would you rate the contractor’s cost control of project modifications?

Exceptional( )
Very Good( )
Satisfactory( )
Marginal( )
Unsatisfactory( )

NOTE: If you provide a rating above or below “Satisfactory” you will need to document your rationale for the use of your rating.

4. Management of Subcontractors. (Only answer this question if the contractor being evaluated is the general contractor and not a subcontractor)

a. How would you rate the subcontract management demonstrated by the general contractor

Exceptional( )
Very Good( )
Satisfactory( )
Marginal( )
Unsatisfactory( )

NOTE: If you provide a rating above or below “Satisfactory” you will need to document your rationale for the use of your rating.

5. Would you recommend awarding similar contracts or using the offeror again for future work?

( ) Yes
( ) No

6. Please provide any other comments you may have.

Attachment 9

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .