Attachment_A_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_1.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P4222Q0058
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for offerors bidding on an interpretive film post production services contract for Shenandoah National Park in Luray, Virginia. The National Park Service is soliciting quotes under a Request for Quotation with a response due date of September 16, 2022 at 12:00pm Eastern Time. The incumbent contractor will be evaluated on quality, schedule, cost control, management, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance for previous similar work. References will rate performance in these areas as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions_and_Answers_2.docx | DOCX document | |
| SHEN_Post_Production_Statement_of_Work_(1)_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_B_-_Price_Schedule_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 140P4222Q0058_Provisions_and_Clauses_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Wage_Determination_WD_15-4333_Rev_21_Page_County_1.pdf |
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
INSTRUCTIONS: Offeror to complete Sections A and B and transmit questionnaire to reference.
Reference to complete Sections C and D and transmit back to Contracting Officer listed in section E.
Interpretive Film Post Production – Shenandoah National Park 140P4222Q0058
A. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Company Name
Street Address
City
State
Zip Code
DUNS Number
Point of Contact
B. CONTRACT INFORMATION
Project Title
Contract Number
Contract Type
Awarded Contract Price
Current / Final Price
Contract Award Date
Contract Completion Date
Period of Performance
Project Location
Client / Owner
Brief description of the contract & work effort:
C. REFERENCE:
Name
Position / Title
Organization
Phone Number
Email Address
Signature
Date
D. EVALUATION
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The element 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 element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| Evaluation Area |
| Rating |
Quality
Quality of workmanship (including subcontractors)?
Quality of and adherence to quality control plan?
Quality of informational and technical submittals?
Overall Quality Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Schedule (& Time Management)
Met project schedule milestones?
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner?
Informational and technical submittals submitted timely?
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Overall Schedule (& Time Management) Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Cost Control
Addressed differing & unforeseen site conditions so as to minimize additional costs?
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Promptly paid subcontractors and suppliers?
Overall Cost Control Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Management
General oversight by project manager and superintendent?
Coordination with and control of subcontractors?
Avoidance of accidents & safety violations?
Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)?
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives?
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Overall Management Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Small Business Subcontracting (& Labor Standards)
Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Successfully contracted with small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses?
Quality and adherence to applicable subcontracting plans?
Overall Small Business Subcontracting (& Labor Standards) Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Regulatory Compliance
Met building and life safety codes?
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating
Overall Recommendation:
| Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar contracts: |
| Choose an item. |
| Overall Comments: |
E. RETURN:
| Return by |
| September 16, 2022 at 12:00pm (noon) Eastern Time |
| Name |
| Debbie Coles |
| Title |
| Contract Specialist |
| Organization |
| National Park Service – Interior Region 1 North Atlantic-Appalachian |
| Debbie_Coles@nps.gov |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .