Attachment_J.9_Revised_Past_Performance_Evaluations_Commissioning.pdf
PDF 124 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Third-Party Commissioning Services State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A
- Issued by
- District of Columbia, District of Columbia
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Evaluation Form for third-party commissioning services procured by the District of Columbia Department of General Services under RFP DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A. The form serves as a standardized assessment tool for evaluating contractor performance across five key performance elements: Quality of Services/Work, Timeliness of Performance, Cost Control, Business Relations, and Customer Satisfaction. Evaluators assign numerical ratings from 0 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Excellent), or a plus designation, based on detailed rating guidelines that assess compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of deliverables, personnel appropriateness, technical excellence, budget adherence, billing accuracy, schedule performance, milestone achievement, responsiveness to technical direction, correspondence quality, and effectiveness of small and disadvantaged business subcontracting programs. The form requires evaluators to provide their name, title, contact information, organization details, a description of services provided, contract number and financial terms, contract performance dates, and detailed remarks addressing both exceptional and deficient performance areas.
The rating guidelines provide specific performance thresholds for each category: unacceptable ratings indicate nonconformances, cost issues, or delays that compromise contract achievement despite agency resources; poor ratings require minor agency resources to address deficiencies; acceptable ratings indicate nonconformances or delays that do not impact contract requirements; good ratings demonstrate no quality problems, cost issues, or delays with effective and responsive communication; and excellent ratings reflect exceptional performance levels. This evaluation form functions as a critical component of the RFP's 30-point past performance and experience evaluation criterion, enabling the District to assess bidder qualifications based on documented contractor performance history on comparable commissioning projects.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
Attachment J.9
DCAM-26-CS-RFP-0002A
THIRD-PARTY COMMISSIONING SERVICES
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
*Please attach Remarks
1. Name and Title of Evaluator:
2. Evaluator Phone: Evaluator Email:
3. Signature of Evaluator:
4. Name of Organization:
5. Describe Services Provided:
6. Contract Number: Contract Amount
Contract Start Date: Contract Finish Date:
7. Remarks on Excellent Performance (attach additional sheet if necessary)
8. Remarks on Unacceptable Performance (attach additional sheet if necessary)
P
Attachment J.9 Page 2 of 2
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
-Accuracy of reports -Appropriateness of personnel
-Technical excellence
-Within budget (over/ under target costs)
-Current, accurate, and complete billings
-Relationship of negated costs to actual
-Cost efficiencies
-Meet Interim milestones -Reliable -Responsive to technical directions -Completed on time, including wrap-up and -contract administration
-Effective management -Businesslike correspondence -Responsive to contract requirements -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/ 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.
4. Good There are no quality problems. There are no cost issues. There are not delays. Responses to inquiries, technical/ effective and responsive,
5. Excellent The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in some or all of the above categories.
achievement of contract requirements.
achievement of contract requirements.
usually effective and responsive.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .