B08_Solicitation_(Attachment_3_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire).pdf

PDF 208 KB Posted

Attached to
National Historic Landmark Update - Pierre Menard
Solicitation number
140P6024Q0061
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service regarding a company's past performance for a project opportunity. The solicitation is for updating the National Historic Landmark nomination for the Pierre Menard House. The project has a period of performance of 36 months after receipt of order, and delivery and acceptance is at the NPS Midwest Regional Office in Omaha, Nebraska. The acquisition is set aside for small businesses under NAICS Code 541720 - Document Preparation Services. The evaluation factors for award are technical, past performance, and price, using simplified acquisition procedures. Quotes are due by August 15, 2024 at 12:00 pm CDT and should be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist.

View the file

Other files

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

Department of Interior Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is considering the company listed below in Section A for a project opportunity - Your comments would be appreciated regarding this company’s past performance.

Instructions:

1) The quoter/offeror is to complete only the information in Section A, then send the PPQ to project owner/evaluator for completion.

2) The project owner/evaluator (or reference) is to complete Section B, then send the PPQ back to the offeror to be provided with their complete quote package, which will then be reviewed for evaluation.

3) The PPQ must be received by the contracting point of contact by the date and time specified in the solicitation (or any amendments). Please note that for electronic submissions, offerors should consider and account for potential delays in transmissions between when an electronic submission is submitted and when an electronic submission is received. Late past performance questionnaires will not be accepted.

4) One PPQ is to be used for each project provided in the Technical Questionnaire for question #1.

Section A (Completed by the quoter/offeror) Project Title:

Location:

Description:

Company Name: Unique Entity ID/Cage Code:

Owner/Project Manager Name: Email Address:

Start Date: Completion Date:

Initial Amount: Final Amount:

Section B (Completed by the project evaluator/reference)

Evaluator Name: Company/Agency Name:

Address: POC Email:

Position Held or Function in Relation to Project:

Ratings Overview

Rating: If the rating is Marginal or Unacceptable, please provide additional information in the appropriate block or in the remarks section of this form.

“O” Outstanding Performance greatly exceeded the contract requirements.

“A” Above Average Performance exceeded the contract requirements.

“S” Satisfactory Performance met the contract requirements.

“M” Marginal Performance met the minimum contract requirements but

Some material aspects of the contractor’s performance were less than satisfactory.

“U” Unacceptable Performance was poor and/or did not satisfy contract requirements.

Questionnaire Please select the appropriate rating and provide supporting information for the following questions.

1. The relationship between the company and client’s/customer’s contract team:

O A S M U

2. Overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness, and cooperative conduct:

O A S M U

3. Quality control: O A S M U

4. Ability to meet the performance schedule: O A S M U

5. Have any cure notices, show cause letters, letter of reprimand, suspension of payment, or termination been issued? If yes, please explain:

Yes No

6. Would you award another contract to the company being evaluated? If no, please explain: Yes No

7. Was the customer satisfied with the final product and services? If no, please explain: Yes No

8. Has the firm being evaluated been provided an opportunity to discuss or respond to any negative comments or performance ratings? If so, what were the results?

Yes No

9. Overall Rating O A S M U

10. Comments

Evaluator Signature and Date Name Date:

Project Title:
Location:
Description:
Company Name:
Unique Entity IDCage Code:
OwnerProject Manager Name:
Email Address:
Start Date:
Completion Date:
Initial Amount:
Final Amount:
Evaluator Name:
CompanyAgency Name:
Address:
POC Email:
Position Held or Function in Relation to Project:
8 Has the firm being evaluated been provided an opportunity to discuss or respond to any negative comments or performance ratings If so what were the results:
9 Overall Rating:
10 Comments:
Date:
Text1:
Text2:
Text3:
Check Box4: Off
Check Box5: Off
Check Box6: Off
Check Box7: Off
Check Box8: Off
Check Box9: Off
Check Box10: Off
Check Box11: Off
Check Box12: Off
Check Box13: Off
Check Box14: Off
Check Box15: Off
Check Box16: Off
Check Box17: Off
Check Box18: Off
Check Box19: Off
Check Box20: Off
Check Box21: Off
Check Box22: Off
Check Box23: Off
Check Box24: Off
Check Box25: Off
Check Box26: Off
Check Box27: Off
Check Box28: Off
Check Box29: Off
Check Box30: Off
Check Box31: Off
Check Box32: Off
Check Box33: Off
Check Box34: Off
Check Box35: Off
Check Box36: Off

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