Attachment_K_-_Past_Perfomance_Evaluation.pdf
PDF 496 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request For Proposal (RFP) | Architectural/Engineering Services for the FEMS and MPD Training Facility
- Solicitation number
- DCAM-24-CS-RFP-0026
- Issued by
- District of Columbia
About this file
Attachment K is a Past Performance Evaluation Form for the District of Columbia's Department of General Services (DGS), issued for the Architectural/Engineering Services Request for Proposal (RFP) DCAM-24-CS-RFP-0026 related to the FEMS and MPD Training Facility project. The form is designed to comprehensively evaluate a contractor's performance across five key performance elements: Quality of Services/Work, Timeliness of Performance, Cost Control, Business Relations, and Customer Satisfaction, with rating options ranging from Unacceptable to Excellent.
The detailed rating guidelines provide specific criteria for evaluating contractors, with ratings from 0 (Unacceptable) to 5 (Excellent), focusing on aspects such as contract compliance, cost efficiencies, milestone achievements, technical responsiveness, and overall project management. The evaluation form includes sections for an evaluator to provide contact information, contract details, and specific remarks about exceptional or unacceptable performance, with the completed form to be submitted to a specified email address. The comprehensive assessment methodology allows for a nuanced evaluation of a contractor's performance across multiple dimensions of project execution.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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 K
DCAM-24-CS-RFP-0026, Architectural/Engineering Services for the FEMS and MPD Training Facility Project 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)
Please submit completed evaluation to concillia.mpofu
Attachment K
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 .