Attachment- Past Performance Questionnaire PPQ FACTOR 2.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

VA San Francisco Healthcare System

San Francisco, CA

The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26125R0009 – Intensive

Care Unit (ICU) Renovation at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, CA. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s).

a. Please complete all sections of the attached questionnaire. Include your full name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, and telephone number.

b. Include the contractor’s name, your point of contact (POC,) the full title and/or description of the type of work performed, the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and the type of award.

c. Use the attached rating scale to rate each performance element.

d. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments.

e. Please e-mail your response with your proposal, on or before the solicitation due date, to the Contract Specialist, Christopher Whipple, at Christopher.whipple@va.gov and CC:

Daniel, Jhun, Contracting Officer at email: Daniel.jhun@va.gov.

Thank you for your time and participation.

mailto:Christopher.whipple@va.gov mailto:Daniel.jhun@va.gov

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE RATING SCALE

RATING: DEFINITION: USAGE:

EXCEPTIONAL Performance exceeded many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

An EXCEPTIONAL rating is appropriate when the contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

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

GOOD Performance exceeded some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A GOOD rating is appropriate when the contractor has successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the

Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

SATISFACTORY Performance met all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the elements being assessed were accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

A SATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when there were only a few minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

MARGINAL Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully successful.

A MARGINAL rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

UNSATISFACTORY Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which

An UNSATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the

Government/Owner. A singular the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

problem, however could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Neutral/Not

Applicable or

Unknown

No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation

Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:

CONTRACTOR MAIN POC

CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACT VALUE:

CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS: CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE:

Prime Contractor

Sub- Contractor

Key Personnel

PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

RESPONDENT’S NAME

YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS

PHONE/FAX NO:

E-MAIL:

1. QUALITY:

A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

RATING

E G S M U N

Comments:

B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

RATING

C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

RATING

D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

RATING

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones

RATING

B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks

RATING

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

RATING

B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication)

RATING

C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer?

RATING

D. Overall customer satisfaction RATING

4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR

A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force?

RATING

B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort

RATING

C. Government Property Control RATING

D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel

RATING

E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines.

RATING

F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

RATING

G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

RATING

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)?

RATING

B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client.

RATING

C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

RATING

D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below

RATING

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY:

A. To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

RATING

B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

RATING

7. GENERAL:

A. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or Contracting officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues.)

RATING

B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

RATING

C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)

RATING

Yes No

D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

RATING