B08_Past_Performance_Questionaires.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- LARO- FY26 Fire Alarm Repairs, Kettle Falls, WA.
- Solicitation number
- 140P8326Q0005
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for evaluating contractor performance on fire suppression repair services at the Kettle Falls North District Office in Kettle Falls, Washington. The questionnaire is part of the procurement process for solicitation number 140P8326Q0005 and establishes past performance as a source selection factor in the evaluation.
The Performance Rating Form requires evaluators to assess contractors across eight performance elements using a four-point scale: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Other/N/A. The evaluation criteria encompass Technical Performance (quality of technical approach and understanding of requirements), Timeliness of Performance (effective resource utilization and schedule adherence), Quality and Customer Satisfaction (commitment to customer satisfaction, business behavior, and communication), and Cost Control (budget management and cost-effective implementation). The form requests comprehensive company and contract information, including the evaluated company's address, contract number, period of performance, contract value, contract type, contracting officer details, and evaluator information with contact details. Additionally, the questionnaire includes a supplemental comment form for evaluators to provide narrative feedback on performance element ratings. Offerors are responsible for compiling and submitting completed questionnaires with their proposals, though the Government reserves the right to contact references to verify the accuracy of provided information. A Yes/No question asks whether the evaluator would do business with the contractor again.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140P8326Q0005_Amd_0002.pdf | ||
| QA_0002.pdf | ||
| Inspections_report_0002.pdf | ||
| Site_VIsit_Roster_3-13-26_0002.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P8326Q0005_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| sprinkler_map.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P8326Q0005.pdf | ||
| Final_SOW_FY246_LARO_Repair_KF_Fire_Suppression_System_12162025.pdf | ||
| SCA_WD_2015-5537_20251203.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: 140P8326Q0005
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
TITLE: Fire suppression repair services, Kettle Falls, LARO.
Past Performance Questionnaire
The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for fire suppression repairs at the Kettle Falls North District Office, Kettle Falls, WA.. 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 .