B08_Past_Performance_Questionaires.docx

DOCX document 30 KB Posted

Attached to
Cultural landscape inv, Bear Paw Battlefield, MT.
Solicitation number
140P8325Q0024
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a cultural landscape inventory project at Bear Paw Battlefield, Montana, issued by the U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS). The solicitation (Number 140P8325Q0024) is seeking a firm fixed-price contract for a cultural landscape inventory, with past performance evaluation being a key source selection factor. The questionnaire provides a detailed performance rating form that allows evaluators to rate contractors across eight performance elements including technical performance, timeliness, quality, customer satisfaction, and cost control, with ratings ranging from Outstanding to Unsatisfactory.

The solicitation requires contractors to be registered in SAM.gov, capable of submitting PDF invoices through IPP.gov, and willing to provide comprehensive documentation of their previous project performance. Contractors must submit quotes and inquiries via email to hal_hoversten@nps.gov. The evaluation form includes a critical ninth question asking whether the evaluator would choose to do business with the contractor again, which serves as a key indicator of overall contractor performance and reliability.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Sol_140P8325Q0024_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
WD_2015-5397.pdf PDF
Sol_140P8325Q0024.pdf PDF
NEPE_-_Bear_Paw_CLI_Scope_of_Work.pdf PDF
B08_Forms_to_Return_with_QUOTE.docx DOCX document

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 NUMBER: 140P8325Q0024

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

TITLE: Cultural Landscape Inventory, Bear Paw Battlefield, NEPE.

Past Performance Questionnaire

The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for cultural landscape inventory of Bear Paw Battlefield, Montana.. As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.

Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED

CONTRACT NUMBER

CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE

CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)

NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS
DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED
Performance Element
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Other

Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH

(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

Quality / Customer Satisfaction

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7. COMMUNICATION

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate
YES
NO

9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

Additional Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.

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