B08_Solit_PSP_Vol_I_PastPerf.docx

DOCX document 48 KB Posted

Attached to
PERL 264852 Pearl Harbor National Monument Repla
Solicitation number
140P2021R0016
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a federal construction contract opportunity. The questionnaire is to be completed by an offeror and reference to replace two concrete floating dock sections at Pearl Harbor National Monument in Hawaii with new post-tensioned floating dock sections measuring approximately 90 feet by 15 feet by 8 feet each. The docks will be equipped with skid resistant coatings, aluminum rails and gates, mooring cleats and fenders, a dive ladder, and davit. Two pedestrian gangways and existing guide piles will also be replaced, and a new shoreside structural mooring system installed on land. The project aims to extend the dock's life cycle to 20-30 years and ensure continued safe visitor access to the USS Arizona Memorial, which over one million people visit annually. The contracting agency is the National Park Service National Office within the Department of the Interior.

View the file

Other files

Show all 19

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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.

A. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

Company Name
Company
Street Address
Address
City
City
State
State
Zip Code
XXXXX
DUNS Number
XXXXXXX
Point of Contact
Name, Email, Phone

B. CONTRACT INFORMATION

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 workmanship (including subcontractors)?
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 technical submittals submitted timely?
Choose an item.
Promptly addressed scheduling issues?
Choose an item.
Overall Schedule (& Time Management) Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Cost Control

Addressed differing & unforeseen site conditions so as to minimize additional costs?
Choose an item.
Provided fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications?
Choose an item.
Submitted accurate and complete invoices?
Choose an item.
Promptly paid subcontractors and suppliers?
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 by project manager and superintendent?
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?
Choose an item.
Demonstrated flexibility, innovativeness and cooperation in resolving potential problems?
Choose an item.
Overall Management Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Small Business Subcontracting (& Labor Standards)

Met regulatory and contractual labor standards?
Choose an item.
Successfully contracted with small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses?
Choose an item.
Quality and adherence to applicable subcontracting plans?
Choose an item.
Overall Small Business Subcontracting (& Labor Standards) Rating
Choose an item.
Comments (Please provide comments supporting the above ratings. Comments supporting ratings of excellent, marginal, & unsatisfactory are especially helpful.):

Regulatory Compliance

Met building and life safety codes?
Choose an item.
Overall Regulatory Compliance 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
Time / Date
Name
CO or CS name
Title
Contracting Officer / Contract Specialist
Organization
National Park Service – Denver Service Center
Email
First_Last@nps.gov

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