AttachmentJ7_PastPerformanceQuestionnaire.doc
DOC document 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Lolo Motorway Phase II & Saddle Camp Pit Development: Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests
- Solicitation number
- 12363N21R4003
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This solicitation is for a road reconstruction and pit development project located on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests in Idaho. The work requires completing approximately 9.5 miles of road reconditioning, 4 miles of full depth reclamation, hauling and placing aggregate, replacing culverts, excavation, embankment work, road shaping, ditch cleaning, and installing drainage dips on Lolo Motorway Phase II. It also requires crushing 4000 tons of type F gradation aggregate, 1000 tons of type M gradation aggregate, and 128 cubic yards of class 2 riprap at the Saddle Camp Pit development site, along with hauling and placing the aggregate and performing roadway reconditioning and clearing on the access road. The estimated price range for the work is $250,000 to $500,000. The solicitation was issued on July 6, 2021 by the USDA Forest Service with responses due on the same date as specified in the pre-bid meeting on August 15, 2021. The projected start date is September 1, 2021 and all work must be completed by September 30, 2022.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment3_SF30_ExtendOfferDeadline.doc | DOC document | |
| Amendment2_SF30_ChgDeadlines_SitePhotos.doc | DOC document | |
| Amendment2_AttachmentJ8_LoloMotorwayPhaseII_SitePhotos.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment1_SF30_CancelPre-BidTour.doc | DOC document | |
| AttachmentJ5_WageDecision_Hwy.pdf | ||
| AttachmentJ3_LoloMotorwayPhase2_Drawings.pdf | ||
| AttachmentJ6_SaddleCampPitPreliminaryEvaluation.pdf | ||
| AttachmentJ1_LoloMotorwayPhase2_FSSS.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_LoloMotorway_SaddleCampCrushing.pdf | ||
| AttachmentJ4_SaddleCampPitCrushing_Drawings.pdf | ||
| AttachmentJ2_SaddleCampPitCrushing_FSSS.docx | DOCX document |
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
Text version
Solicitation 12363N21R4003 Lolo Motorway Phase 2 & Saddle Camp Pit Development
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests
ATTACHMENT J-7: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Project/Contract: __________________ Name of Offeror: __________________________________ Name and Title of Person Completing Questionnaire: ________________________________________ Reference Contact Information (phone # & email address):___________________________________ Company/Organization: __________________________________ Briefly describe the nature and size in dollars of your contract with the Offeror and types of work completed. (If more space is needed, please use the “Additional Comments” block on the second page):
Please return this Past Performance Questionnaire to Karen Ruklic at the following email address: karen.ruklic@usda.gov no later than the date offers are due. Email questions to karen.ruklic@usda.gov.
ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS
| “E” |
| Excellent: Performance greatly exceeded contract requirements resulting in overall benefits to the customer with no significant weaknesses or complaints. |
| “G” |
| Good: Performance consistently met and often exceeded many of the contract requirements with very few weaknesses or complaints. |
| “A” |
| Acceptable: Performance consistently met contract requirements with noted weaknesses or complaints adequately corrected. |
| “M” |
| Marginal: Performance often failed to meet minimum contract requirements with numerous noted weaknesses or complaints usually corrected. |
| “U” |
| Unacceptable: Performance consistently failed to meet contract requirements with numerous significant weaknesses or complaints left uncorrected. |
| Past Performance Question |
| Rating (Circle answer) |
1. Describe the quality of work performed. Did the contractor meet or exceed contract requirements?
Comments:
E G A M U
2. Describe the timeliness of performance.
Comments:
E G A M U
3. Rate the quality of contract management including paperwork processing and quality control effectiveness. How responsive was the contractor in resolving quality, schedule, or other contract issues?
Comments:
E G A M U
4. How effective was the contractor in addressing specific customer needs including cost control, oversight of subcontractors/suppliers, and compliance with regulatory/labor/safety standards?
Comments:
E G A M U
5. How satisfied were you with the contractor’s overall performance?
E G A M U
6. Would you award another contract to this contractor?
Yes No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PLEASE NOTE: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations, contractors may be advised of adverse remarks and given an opportunity to respond. However, the contracting officer will not provide your name or copies of this questionnaire to the contractor or any other party not directly involved in the evaluation of the contractor’s proposal.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .