C06_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_.docx
DOCX document 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Great Smoky Mts. NP:COSBY WATER LINE REPLACEMENT
- Solicitation number
- 140P5321R0015
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire template for evaluation of contractors on federal projects. The template requests information on contract details including project title, number, type, value and dates for a specific contract being evaluated. It lists evaluation areas of quality, schedule, cost control, management, small business subcontracting and regulatory compliance. References are asked to provide ratings in these areas from exceptional to unsatisfactory along with comments. The related federal contract opportunity is for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to replace a water line in Cosby, Tennessee. The solicitation is from the Department of the Interior National Park Service Southeast Region.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
Street Address
City
State
Zip Code
DUNS Number
Point of Contact
B. CONTRACT INFORMATION
Project Title
Contract Number
Contract Type
Awarded Contract Price
Current / Final Price
Contract Award Date
Contract Completion Date
Period of Performance
Project Location
Client / Owner
Brief description of the contract & work effort:
C. REFERENCE:
Name
Position / Title
Organization
Phone Number
Email Address
Signature
Date
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
| Name |
| Geraldine Larsen |
| Title |
| Contracting Officer |
| Organization |
| National Park Service – Region 2 South Atlantic Gulf |
| Geraldine_larsen@nps.gov |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .