Attachment_A-Past_Performance_Evaluation_Form.pdf
PDF 165 KB Posted
- Attached to
- REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
- Solicitation number
- DCAM-26-CS-RFQ-0006
- Issued by
- District of Columbia
About this file
This is a Past Performance Evaluation Form designed for use by the District of Columbia Department of General Services in conjunction with a Request for Qualifications for construction projects serving the District of Columbia Public Schools, Department of Park and Recreation, and municipal facilities during the 2027-2032 fiscal years. The form serves as a standardized assessment tool for evaluating contractor performance across multiple dimensions including quality of services and work, timeliness of performance, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction. Evaluators are required to complete the form by identifying the offeror being assessed, selecting appropriate performance ratings for each element, providing the evaluator's contact information and organization affiliation, documenting the specific type of service received, referencing relevant contract numbers and periods of performance, and supplying detailed remarks supporting any excellent or unacceptable performance findings.
The form employs a five-point rating scale ranging from zero (Unacceptable) to four (Excellent), with an additional plus designation option. Rating guidelines establish specific criteria for each performance category, with unacceptable ratings assigned when nonconformances, cost issues, delays, or inadequate responses compromise contract requirements despite agency resource allocation; poor ratings when such issues require major agency resources to address; acceptable ratings when minor issues require only minor agency resources; good ratings when no substantive problems exist; and excellent ratings when the contractor demonstrates exceptional performance levels. The evaluation framework emphasizes compliance with contract requirements, budget adherence, timeliness of milestone completion, accuracy of reporting, technical excellence, effective business communication, responsive contractor solutions, and implementation of small and disadvantaged business subcontracting programs as critical performance indicators.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
Attachment L
[INSERT PROJECT NAME HERE]
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
(Check appropriate box)
OFFEROR __ __________________
Performance Elements Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unacceptable
Quality of Services/ Work
Timeliness of Performance
Cost Control
Business Relations
Customer Satisfaction
1. Name and Title of Evaluator:
2. Signature of Evaluator:
3. Name of Organization:
4. Telephone Number of Evaluator: _
E-mail address of Evaluator: __________________________
5. State type of service received:
6. State Contract Number, Amount and Period of Performance
7. Remarks on Excellent Performance: Provide data supporting this observation. Continue on separate sheet if needed)
8. Remarks on unacceptable performance: Provide data supporting this observation. (Continue on separate sheet if needed) safiullah.baran Highlight
Attachment L
RATING GUIDELINES
Summarize Contractor performance in each of the rating areas. Assign each area a rating of 0 (Unacceptable), 1 (Poor), 2 (Acceptable), 3 (Good), 4(Excellent), or ++ (Plus). Use the following instructions for guidance in making these evaluations.
Quality Timeless Business Product/Service Cost Control of Performance Relations
-Compliance with contract requirements
-Within budget (over/ under target costs)
-Meet Interim milestones -Reliable
-Effective management -Businesslike correspondence
-Accuracy of reports -Appropriateness of
-Current, accurate, and complete billings
-Responsive to technical directions
-Responsive to contract requirements personnel -Technical excellence
-Relationship of negated costs to actual
-Cost efficiencies
-Completed on time, including wrap-up and
-contract administration
-Prompt notification of contract problems
-Reasonable/cooperative -Change order issue -No liquidated damages assessed -Flexible -Pro-active -effective contractor recommended solutions -Effective snail/small disadvantaged business Subcontracting program
0. Zero Nonconformances are comprises the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of
Cost issues are comprising performance of contract requirements.
Delays are comprising the achievement of contract requirements, Despite use
Response to inquiries, technical/ service/administrative issues is not effective and responsive.
Agency resources of Agency resources.
1. Unacceptable Nonconformances require major Cost issues require major Delays require major response to inquiries, technical/ Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
service/administrative issues is marginally effective and responsive.
2. Poor Nonconformances require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Costs issues require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract
Responses to inquiries, technical/ service/administrative issues is somewhat effective and requirements. requirements. requirements. responsive.
3. Acceptable Nonconformances do not impact Cost issues do not impact Delays do not impact Responses to inquires, technical/ achievement of contract requirements.
achievement of contract requirements.
achievement of contract requirements.
service/administrative issues is usually effective and responsive.
4. Good There are no quality problems. There are no cost issues. There are not delays. Responses to inquiries, technical/ service/administrative issues is effective and responsive,
5. Excellent The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in some or all of the above categories.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .