Past_Performance_Questionaire.docx

DOCX document 37 KB Posted

Attached to
Yellowstone, Grand Teton, & Surrounding Area Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)
Solicitation number
DTFH70-13-R-00001
Issued by

About this file

From the source

Past Performance Questionaire (Word)

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
A002_Yellowstone _Grand_Teton_ _Surrounding_Area_MATOC.pdf PDF
A001_Yellowstone _Grand_Teton_MATOC.pdf PDF
Technical_Information_Form_1.docx DOCX document
Technical_Information_Form_2.docx DOCX document
RFP_Yellowstone_Grand_Teton_and_Surrounding_Area_MATOC.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

M-23

TO: FACSIMILE:

PHONE: EMAIL:

INFORMATION REQUEST FOR

PAST PERFORMANCE

(Questionnaire) Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) is currently in the process of soliciting offers for a contract. Specifically, WFLHD is looking for past performance information in the following areas:

Factor 3: Project Management Subfactor 3a: Project Management - Planning and Scheduling Subfactor 3b: Project Management - Change Management (Collaboration with Owner) Subfactor 3c: Project Management - Quality Control System Subfactor 3d: Project Management - Project Superintendence and Management Personnel Subfactor 3e: Project Management - Subcontract Management In order for WFLHD to complete its evaluation, the attached past performance questionnaire must be completed and submitted directly to WFLHD not later than the proposal due date which is currently October 24, 2013. The completed questionnaire may be e-mailed or faxed to:

FAX: (360) 619-7932

E-MAIL: WFL.Contracts@dot.gov For your convenience, a cover sheet for use in mailing/faxing is provided below.

Western Federal Lands Highway Division
Attn: Angy Liljedahl

Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver WA 98661-3801

From:(Name and Address of Firm)
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

(Point of Contact Name): __________________________________________________ Facsimile/Phone Number: __________________________________________ E-mail Address: __________________________________________________

To (Point of Contact Name) Angy Liljedahl Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661-3801 Envelope must be marked: “Source Selection Information - For Addressee Only” Facsimile Number: (360) 619-7932 E-mail Address: WFL.Contracts@dot.gov

M-18

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 (Applicable when filled-in) Project Past Performance Questionnaire (Submitted by Owner/Agency)

Directions: Ratings to be completed by the Owner/Agency and submitted directly to:

ATTN: ANGY LILJEDAHL

Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 East Fifth Street FAX: (360) 619-7932 Vancouver, WA 98661-3801 EMAIL: WFL.Contracts@dot.gov

Part A - General Information (to be completed by the contractor):

Contractor’s Name

Owner/Agency

Contact Name

Contact Number

Project Title

Project Number

Contract Number

Project Location (Town/State/Forest…)

Description of Work provided by the Contractor:

Contract Information for project listed above (to be completed by the Owner/Agency):

Contract Award Date:

Contract Start Date:

Completion Date:

Were liquidated damages assessed for late completion?
__ Yes
__ No
Was a contractor evaluation prepared?
__ Yes
__ No
If yes what was the overall rating?

Project Past Performance Questionnaire (Submitted by Owner/Agency) Evaluation Subfactor Rating System. Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the following ratings:

N/A=Not Applicable U=Unsatisfactory P=Poor F=Fair G=Good E=Excellent O=Outstanding Unsatisfactory--Performance did not meet significant contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appeared or were ineffective.

Poor--Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element being assessed reflected a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appeared only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Fair-- Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared or were satisfactory

Good-- Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some, to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Excellent-- Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many, to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Outstanding-- Performance exceeded all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the Subfactor element being assessed was accomplished with no problems (It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeded the performance levels described as "Excellent".)

· For ratings of “Unsatisfactory” and “Poor” please provide a brief explanation in the remarks section.

Project Past Performance Questionnaire

Subfactor 3a: Project Management – Planning and Scheduling

Developed progress schedules that accurately reflected production rates, sequence of work, anticipated resources, and work schedule.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Scheduling changes were clearly communicated to the workforce, suppliers and owner agency representatives.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Schedule updates were submitted as required by the contract.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The completed project met expectations.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
How would you rate the contractor’s overall project management performance in the areas of Planning and Scheduling?
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O

Subfactor 3b: Project Management – Change Management (Collaboration with Owner)

The contractor effectively collaborated with the owner in an equitable, businesslike and timely manner to come to satisfactory agreements.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor took the lead in problem solving
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Supporting price/cost information for modifications was accurate, complete, and reasonable.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
How would you rate the contractor’s overall effort at collaboration with the owner agency in problem solving?
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O

Subfactor 3c: Project Management - Quality Control System

The contractor followed their quality control plan.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor provided an adequate number of experienced, effective quality control personnel to successfully execute the quality control plan.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor completed work according to the specifications without owner agency presence.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor developed complete, accurate, and professional project submittals as required to complete the work.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Quality control documentation was timely and adequate.
N/A
U
P
E
G
E
O
The contractor consistently took responsibility to ensure that all work met contract requirements.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O

Subfactor 3d: Project Management – Project Superintendence and *Management Personnel

Project superintendence acted promptly and professionally to resolve problems.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Management personnel acted promptly and professionally to resolve problems
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Project superintendence had sufficient authority to make decisions or to take appropriate actions.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Management personnel had sufficient authority to make decisions or to take appropriate actions.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Project superintendence was readily available at all times during performance of the work.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Project superintendence dealt in an ethical, collaborative and businesslike manner with owner agency representatives, workforce, subcontractors and suppliers.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Management personnel dealt in an ethical, collaborative and businesslike manner with owner agency representatives, workforce, subcontractors and suppliers.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Project Superintendence and Management personnel were competent in performance of their duties.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Project Superintendence and Management personnel were committed to customer satisfaction.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O

*Management Personnel: On-site and home office personnel, other than the Superintendent, having direct oversight responsibilities and involved in the project activities, such as project planning and scheduling or contract modification negotiations.

Subfactor 3e: Project Management – Subcontract Management

The contractor was accountable for subcontractor performance.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor coordinated effectively with subcontractors regarding changes to schedules or work.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor included subcontractors in quality control activities, or meetings, as appropriate.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor effectively represented subcontractors to the owner concerning changes or other project issues.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
The contractor facilitated corrective actions, for defective administrative or site work, to ensure subcontractor work was completed in a timely and satisfactory manner.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O
Selected subcontractors were competent to perform the intended work.
N/A
U
P
F
G
E
O

Remarks:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 (Applicable when filled-in)

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