B08_ATT_4_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Utah Orphan Wells Plugging & Abandonment 2022
- Solicitation number
- 140L0622R0031
About this file
This document is a past performance questionnaire for a contractor responding to the Utah Orphan Wells Plugging & Abandonment 2022 solicitation issued by the Bureau of Land Management. The solicitation seeks plugging and abandonment services for orphan oil and gas wells located in Utah, with a response due date of July 6, 2022. Evaluation criteria for contractors include quality of work, schedule adherence, pricing and payment practices, management and oversight, and regulatory compliance. References are also required to assess performance on prior plugging and abandonment contracts. Relevant details include contract prices, locations, award and completion dates, and ratings definitions for different performance levels.
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
140L0622R0031 – FY22 UTAH ORPHANED WELLS PLUGGING & ABANDONMENT
A. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
| Company Name |
| Company |
| Street Address |
| Address |
| City |
| City |
| State |
| State |
| Zip Code |
| XXXXX |
| DUNS Number |
| XXXXXXX |
| Point of Contact |
| Name, Email, Phone |
B. CONTRACT INFORMATION
| Project Title |
| Title |
| Contract Number |
| XXXXXXXXXX |
| Contract Type |
| Firm Fixed Price / Time & Materials / Cost Reimbursable / Other |
| Awarded Contract Price |
| $X,XXX,XXX |
| Current / Final Price |
| $X,XXX,XXX |
| Contract Award Date |
| XX/XX/XXXX |
| Contract Completion Date |
| XX/XX/XXXX |
| Project Location |
| Street address, City, State |
| Client / Owner |
| Company |
| Brief description of the contract & work effort: |
| Scope of work description |
C. REFERENCE:
Name
Position / Title
Organization
Phone Number
Email Address
Signature
Date
D. EVALUATION
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Exceptional (EX) |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the owner’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| Performance met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Marginal (M) |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective action. |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective. |
Not Applicable (NA)
The element does not pertain to the subject project as a result of specific contract and/or project requirements.
| Evaluation Area |
| Rating |
Quality
Quality of workmanship (including subcontractors)?
Quality of and adherence to quality control plan?
Quality of informational and technical submittals?
Overall Quality Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Schedule & Time Management
Met project schedule milestones and/or deadlines?
Responded to owner requests in a timely manner?
Informational and technical submittals submitted timely?
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Overall Schedule & Time Management Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Pricing and Payments
Minimized additional costs when addressing differing & unforeseen site conditions?
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Promptly paid subcontractors and suppliers?
Overall Pricing and Payment Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Management
General oversight by project manager and superintendent?
Coordination with and control of subcontractors?
Avoidance of accidents & safety violations?
Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)?
Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives?
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Overall Management Rating
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):
Regulatory Compliance
Met building and life safety codes?
Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Overall Regulatory Compliance Rating
Overall Recommendation:
Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with the contract’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar contracts:
Overall Comments:
E. RETURN:
| Return by |
| 6 July 2022 / 2 PM MT |
| Name |
| Paula Johnson |
| Title |
| Contracting Officer |
| Organization |
| Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, OC664 |
| pjohnson@blm.gov |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .