B08 Att B Final 140P1220R0006 Past Performance Survey.pdf

Past Performance Survey Questionnaire

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 1 of 8

Simplified Acquisition of Basic Engineering Requirements Contract (SABER)

National Park Service – Intermountain Region

Lakewood Major Acquisition Buying Office

LW Utah SABER Contract

Solicitation: 140P1220R00006

Past Performance and Experience Survey Questionnaire

The offeror shall complete only the information on Page 2 and submit with Electronic File #2.

The Government reserves the right to contact the listed references to obtain additional Past Performance information detailed on pages 2-8.

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 2 of 8

Please return this form to the individual(s) identified below, by the date requested by the offeror via electronic means.

Kris O’Neil, National Park Service

Interior Regions 6, 7 & 8

12795 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80225

(970) 227-3366 e-mail: Kris_ONeil@nps.gov

Company Contact Information:

Company / Agency / Organization

Name / Title of Reference

Telephone Number

E-mail Address

Contract / Project Information

Contractor / Company Name

Project Title

Contract Number

Complexity of Work

Location of Work

Role on Project (circle one) Prime Sub-contractor Mentor Protégé

Contract Amount $

Date of Award thru completion

Project Status

Complete

Scheduled Completion

Date Actual Completion Date mailto:Kris_ONeil@nps.gov

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 3 of 8

The Government reserves the right to contact the listed references to obtain additional Past

Performance information detailed on the following pages. The offeror shall not complete any information on the following pages.

1. QUALITY OF WORK

Evaluate performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

Very Good

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Remarks / Comments:

2. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

To what extent were contract performance requirements met? Consider contract performance period;

were submittals provided in a timely manner; timely completion of punch-list items; submission of close out documents, i.e., “as-built drawings”. Timely / satisfactory response to warranty issues, etc.

Completed Substantially Ahead of Schedule

Completed on Schedule with no Significant Time Delays

Completed on Schedule with Minor Delays Under Extenuating Circumstances

Routinely failed to Schedule Perform Requirements

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 4 of 8

3. DOCUMENTATION QUALITY

To what extent were reports, submittals and other required documentation accurate, complete, comprehensive, and provided in a timely manner? Consider how often reworking documentation had to occur as well.

Excellent Quality

Above Average Quality

Average Quality

Below Average Quality

Unsuccessful / Extensive Quality Problems

4. COORDINATION

How well were sub-contractors, consultants, suppliers, and / or the labor force managed and coordinated? Or, if firm was a sub-contractor, how well did they respond to coordination efforts and work with other subs? Were there any problems and, if so, how were they handled and resolved? Was the contractor pleasant to work with, and did they resolve issues timely?

Excellent

Above Average

Average

Below Average

Unsuccessful

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 5 of 8

5. GENERAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

How appropriate and effective were the firm’s general management and business practices? Consider such things as; did they provide quality, experienced managers and supervisors, technical and administrative personnel for the duration of the project; were appropriate personnel promptly available when needed, and responded in a prompt and acceptable manner to resolve problems, did they provide comprehensive, accurate price proposals, etc.

Excellent

Above Average

Average

Below Average

6. OVERALL SAFETY PROGRAM

How well did the contractor manage the construction project as it relates to general safety? Discuss any safety issues that arose during the course of the project.

Excellent

Above Average

Average

Below Average

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 6 of 8

7. BUDGET MANAGEMENT

How well did the contractor conform to the project budget? Did the contractor initiate unwarranted, unverifiable, change orders or change order requests, etc.?

Excellent

Above Average

Below Average

8. CLAIMS / LITIGATION

Was the contractor involved in any claims or litigation involving the project?

Yes (If “Yes”, please explain in remarks area below)

No

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 7 of 8

9. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

To what extent were the end users satisfied with: Quality? Cost? Schedule?

Quality Cost Schedule

Exceptionally Satisfied

Highly Satisfied

Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied (please explain)

Dissatisfied (please explain)

10. YOUR RECOMMENDATION

If given the opportunity and the choice, would you work with this contractor again?

Yes

No

Not Sure

Final Remarks / Comments:

LW Utah SABER Contract (NPS – IMR) Page 8 of 8

11. OTHER REMARKS / COMMENTS

Use the space below to provide other information related to the contractor's performance. This may include selection of sub-contractors / consultants, flexibility in dealing with contract challenges, payment issues, their overall concern for the client's interest (if applicable), project awards received, etc.