Attachment D Past Performance Survey 07.27.docx
DOCX document 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Z1DA--Service-Renovate Domestic Water Piping Projects FMS (VA-21-00001742)605-21-1-6043-0001-
- Solicitation number
- 36C25821R0015
About this file
This document contains a past performance survey template and details of a related federal contract opportunity for domestic water piping renovation projects. The past performance survey is to be completed by references for offerors bidding on Solicitation 36C25821R0015, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 22. The survey collects ratings on quality, timeliness, management, and compliance for plumbing projects over $5 million and at least 75% complete within the last five years addressing Legionella or extensive piping work. Offerors must include completed surveys with their proposals. The solicitation seeks proposals to renovate domestic water piping at multiple facilities due no later than August 28, 2021 at 2:00 PM Pacific Time. Requests for information will be accepted until August 16. The work will be performed for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Loma Linda, California.
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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
S02 Past Performance Survey – Solicitation 36C25821R0015
PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY
Solicitation 36C25821R0015, Domestic Water Piping
This is a past performance survey for: (Contractor Name) _______________________________
This past performance survey will be used as past performance information in the evaluation of the identified firm in consideration for award of a Loma Linda VA project for Domestic Water Piping project, solicitation 36C25821R0015. The past performance is requested for work that is for $5M or greater and involves Legionella or extensive plumbing projects. Work is to be at least 75% complete and within the last five years.
Company/Agency completing survey: __________________________________________ Name / Contact information for person completing the survey: ___________________________
Please provide this completed past performance survey with your proposal and or directly to: (Xochipilli.Valdivia@va.gov and Tina.Kennedy@va.gov ). Offer is responsible to ensure the information has been received prior to bid due date.
Contract Number: Award Date:
Title:
Contractor Name:
Completion Date or percent complete: Percent Complete:
Description of Work:
Contract Amount: $ Estimate of plumbing work: $ Performance Elements How was the Contractor rated in the following areas?
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
Quality of Work
Timely Performance
Effective Management
Contract Compliance
Over Rating
Evaluation Ratings Definitions are attached for your reference.
Xochi Valdivia Contracting Specialist
Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business)
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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. |
| To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the |
Contractor was effective.
To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets 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. |
| To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal |
| 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. The Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the Contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
| Neutral |
| Offeror without a record of relevant or for whom information is not available. |
| Offeror cannot provide past performance ratings will receive a “neutral” rating. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .