B08_Att_6_PastPerf.pdf

PDF 240 KB Posted

Attached to
GWMP 335115 Bridge Preservation Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2025R0050
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service National Office

About this file

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for solicitation GWMP 335115, to be used for evaluating contractors' previous work experience. The form consists of five sections (A-E) where the offeror completes sections A and B with their company and contract information, while the reference completes sections C and D with performance evaluations, before returning it to the Contracting Officer in section E.

The evaluation criteria assess four main areas: Quality, Schedule & Time Management, Cost Control, and Management, using a five-tier rating system from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. Each area contains multiple specific evaluation factors, such as quality of deliverables, adherence to schedule milestones, pricing fairness, and project management capabilities. The questionnaire requires detailed supporting comments for ratings, particularly for exceptional, marginal, and unsatisfactory assessments. The form includes a notice to contractors regarding the source selection sensitive nature of the information and restrictions on using the evaluations for promotional purposes. The completed forms are to be returned to the National Park Service - Denver Service Center.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 15

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Solicitation for GWMP 335115

INSTRUCTIONS: Offeror to complete Sections A and B and transmit questionnaire to reference.

Reference to complete Sections C and D and transmit back to Contracting Officer listed in section E.

Notice to Contractor

Information provided in this questionnaire is intended for use as source selection information and as such is deemed Source Selection Sensitive. Statements or comments provided in the questionnaire do not signify an express or implied endorsement of any product, supply, service, or enterprise.

This information shall not be construed as an endorsement by the Government or its employee(s) of the contractor for advertising purposes or in a manner that implies the contractor, its products, or services, are approved, endorsed, or considered by the Government to be superior to other products or services.

The contractor shall not be permitted to use any information provided in this questionnaire to publicize, or otherwise circulate, promotional materials that state or imply Governmental, organizational, group, expert, or individual endorsement or consumer testimonial of a product, service, or position which the contractor represents.

A. OFFEROR INFORMATION

Company Name Company Street Address Address City City State State Zip Code XXXXX Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number / SAM

XXXXXXX

Point of Contact Name, Email, Phone

B. CONTRACT INFORMATION FOR PAST PROJECT (PROJECT SUBMITTED UNDER PROJECT

EXPERIENCE)

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 Period of Performance XX/XX/XXX – XX/XX/XXX Project Location Park or Street address, City, State Client / Owner Company Brief description of the contract & work effort:

Scope of work description

C. REFERENCE:

Name First, Last Position / Title Title Organization Agency or Company Phone Number XXX-XXX-XXXX Email Address Email Signature Signature Date XX/XX/XXXX

D. EVALUATION

Rating Definition

Exceptional 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 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 Performance met contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does 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 appear or were ineffective.

Evaluation Area Rating Quality Quality of deliverables and communications (proper format and information)? Choose an item.

Quality of and adherence to quality control plan? Choose an item.

Quality of informational and technical submittals? Choose an item.

Overall Quality Rating Choose an item.

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? Choose an item.

Responded to owner requests in a timely manner? Choose an item.

Informational and other submittals submitted timely (daily reports and other deliverables)? Choose an item.

Promptly addressed scheduling issues? Choose an item.

Overall Schedule (& Time Management) Rating Choose an item.

Cost Control Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications? Choose an item.

Submitted accurate and complete invoices? Choose an item.

Promptly paid subcontractors? Choose an item.

Overall Cost Control Rating Choose an item.

Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Management General oversight of GC field staff? Choose an item.

Coordination with and control of subcontractors? Choose an item.

Avoidance of accidents & safety violations? Choose an item.

Addressed location factors (especially remote locations)? Choose an item.

Maintained good working relationship with owner representatives and General Contractor? Choose an item.

Provides regular and ad-hoc communication with Government/Owner Rep. and General Contractor to proactively prevent project issues/delays?

Choose an item.

Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems? Choose an item.

Overall Management Rating Choose an item.

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: Choose an item.

Overall Comments:

E. RETURN:

Return by Reference solicitation Name Zaira Lupidi Title Contracting Officer / Contract Specialist Organization National Park Service – Denver Service Center Email jeremiah_rogers@nps.gov / dane_cooper@nps.com

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .