Attachment J.1 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

41 KB Posted

Attached to
Modernization and Space Enhancement Services in the Frances Perkins Building (FPB)
Solicitation number
1605C3-26-R-00010
Issued by

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template designed to evaluate contractor experience and qualifications for the modernization and space enhancement services contract at the Department of Labor's Frances Perkins Building.

The questionnaire is an appendix to the solicitation (1605C3-26-R-00010) and does not specify required products or services itself, as it functions as an evaluation tool rather than a substantive contract document. Contractors responding to this 100% Total Small Business Set-Aside solicitation would be required to complete this questionnaire to demonstrate their past performance on similar projects. The questionnaire would typically request information about relevant projects, client references, project scope, budget, schedule performance, and quality metrics to assess the offeror's capability to successfully execute the modernization work on the historic Frances Perkins Building, which involves interior space upgrades ranging from minor improvements to comprehensive design-build services including architectural modifications and building system enhancements.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Amendment 2.pdf PDF
Amendment 2 - Attachment J.2 (Pricing Schedule).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Amendment 1 - Revised Section L (Page 50).pdf PDF
Amendment 1 - Attachment J.3 (DBA WD DC20260002).pdf PDF
Amendment 1 - Attachment J.2 (Pricing Schedule).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
SF30 Amend 1.pdf PDF
FPB IDIQ RFP Questions and Answers Amend 1.pdf PDF
Attachment J.3 - WD 2015-4281.pdf PDF
Attachment J.4 - GSA 527 - Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information.pdf PDF
RFP 1605C3-26-R-00010 (7-28-2026) .pdf PDF
Attachment J.2 - FPB Enhancement IDIQ Pricing Schedule.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does. Thank you.

RETURN INFORMATION

The evaluator that completes this questionnaire must submit it directly to the Contract Specialists, Helen A. Williams (williams.helen.a@dol.gov) and Broderick Morris (morris.broderick@dol.gov). All responses are due by 9:00am EDT, August 17, 2026.

Thank you for your assistance.

PART I. (To be completed by the Contractor)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Name of Contractor/Company being evaluated:

Name of Contractor/Company Name/Division providing the evaluation:

Address:

Program/Account Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Contract Amount:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Period of Performance:

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Detailed description of purchases or services provided:

Was this work with a: Commercial_____ Fed Gov’t_____ Local/State Gov’t_____ entity.

Relevance of the referenced contract to the current requirement:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY POINT OF CONTACT – RESPONDENT)

For each performance element identified below, references should evaluate performance of the firm or individual identified in Part 1 of this form. Where the reference lacks sufficient information to provide an evaluation for a particular performance element, this should be noted. Where any deficiency or unfavorable information is identified, the reference should identify any mitigating factors that may weigh in favor for the person/firm on whose behalf the reference is provided (i.e., problems due to causes outside the contractor’s control). An individual within your organization that is knowledgeable of the contractor’s day-to-day operations and overall performance should complete this questionnaire. However, that individual is encouraged to supplement their own knowledge of the contractor’s performance with the judgment of others within their organization, as applicable.

The following chart depicts the ratings that are to be used to evaluate the contractor’s performance, following FAR Part 42:

RATING
DEFINITION
NOTE
EXCEPTIONAL (E)
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 (V)
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 (S)
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 evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

MARGINAL (M)
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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 (U)
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).

When responding to the questions listed, highlight the letter that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. For any exceptional, marginal, or unsatisfactory rating, please provide explanatory narratives in the remarks block. These narratives need not be lengthy, just detailed. If you highlight a Yes/No answer that is marked with an asterisk (*), please provide a corresponding explanation in the remarks block. If more space is required, please attach additional pages.

Your time and effort in providing this vitally important information are greatly appreciated.

PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS:

QUALITY OF SERVICE

1.
Contractor’s ability to meet minimum quality standards specified for performance.
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Contractor’s ability to effectively control the quality of services provided.
E
V
S
M
U
3.
Contractor’s compliance with contractual terms and conditions.
E
V
S
M
U
4.
Quality of products furnished.
E
V
S
M
U
5.
Overall rating of contractor’s standard of workmanship.
E
V
S
M
U
6.
Overall rating of contractor’s quality of service.
E
V
S
M
U

TIMELINESS OF SERVICE

1.
Contractor’s ability to meet specific response times and scheduled time frames for completion of specific tasks.
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Contractor’s responsiveness/timeliness for providing administrative reports/documents required by the contract.
E
V
S
M
U
3.
Contractor’s adherence to delivery schedules?
E
V
S
M
U
4.
Contractor’s timeliness in responding to emergency service requirements.
E
V
S
M
U
5.
Overall rating of contractor’s responsiveness/timeliness.
E
V
S
M
U

BUSINESS RELATIONS

1.
Contractor’s ability to identify problems and potential problems, and promptly notify the Contracting Officer.
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Contractor’s ability to correct problems and prevent or mitigate potential problems in a timely manner.
E
V
S
M
U
3.
Contractor’s willingness to improve and correct noncompliance issues or concerns.
E
V
S
M
U
4.
Contractor’s ability to use effective approaches and provide technical expertise and resources to solve contract problems.
E
V
S
M
U
5.
Extent to which the contractor has demonstrated reasonable and cooperative behavior.
E
V
S
M
U
6.
Contractor’s effectiveness in interfacing with the Contracting Officer, quality assurance personnel, and customers.
E
V
S
M
U
7.
Contractor’s flexibility in satisfying the requirements of its customers.
E
V
S
M
U
8.
Extent to which the contractor provided prompt and courteous service when responding to customer complaints.
E
V
S
M
U
9.
Contractor’s ability to coordinate, integrate, and provide for effective subcontractor management
E
V
S
M
U
10.
Overall rating of customer satisfaction.
E
V
S
M
U
11.
Overall rating of business relations.
E
V
S
M
U

MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL

1.
Contractor’s ability to select and retain cooperative and effective key personnel, such as the contract manager and quality control personnel.
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Extent key personnel were knowledgeable about contractual requirements.
E
V
S
M
U
3.
Contractor’s ability to meet appropriate staffing levels with qualified personnel in order to provide required services.
E
V
S
M
U
4.
Rate the contractor’s ability to provide continuity of key personnel on the contract.
E
V
S
M
U
5.
Rate the contractor’s ability to replace key personnel in a timely fashion
E
V
S
M
U
6.
Contractor’s ability to effectively manage subcontractors.
E
V
S
M
U
7.
Rate the level of the functional expertise of the contractor’s staff.
E
V
S
M
U
8.
Overall rating of contractor’s management of key personnel.
E
V
S
M
U

COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY, HEALTH, AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

1.
Has the contractor ever received any Notices of Violations for noncompliance with environmental laws or regulations?*
YES NO
2.
Contractor’s compliance with environmental requirements.
E
V
S
M
U
3.
Contractor’s compliance with safety requirements.
E
V
S
M
U
4.
Contractor’s compliance with health requirements.
E
V
S
M
U
5.
Contractor’s compliance with security requirements.
E
V
S
M
U

COST MANAGEMENT (COST CONTRACTS)

1.
Extent to which the contractor provided reliable, supportable cost estimates or proposals
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Extent to which the contractor met the proposed cost estimates?
E
V
S
M
U

CONTRACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.
If a subcontracting plan was required, extent to which contractor met applicable goals for small business participation.
E
V
S
M
U
2.
Has an election ever been made not to exercise an option or continue relations due to contractor’s poor performance?*
YES NO
3.
Has a Contract Discrepancy Report ever been issued?*
YES NO
4.
Has a cure notice or show cause notice ever been issued?*
YES NO
5.
Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience?*
YES NO

Partially ________ Completely _________

6.
Are there any pending terminations?*
YES NO
7.
Overall rating of contractor’s performance under this contract.
E
V
S
M
U
8.
Would you hire this contractor again?
YES NO

*REMARKS

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

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