Exhibit 3 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Haines / Fairbanks Generators Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47PL0124R0032
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) that allows the government to evaluate the past performance of a contractor for a federal contract opportunity. The PPQ requests information about the contractor, including the contract details such as contract number, type, award date, and original and final contract prices. It also asks the client to provide an assessment of the contractor's performance in areas such as quality, schedule/timeliness, customer satisfaction, management, and cost/financial management, using a rating scale. Additionally, the client is asked to provide an overall rating for the contractor's work and any other relevant comments. The PPQ must be submitted directly to the government points of contact and cannot be reviewed by the contractor prior to submission.
The related federal contract opportunity is for a Design Build Dispose/Replace Electrical Generators project at the Dalton Cache Land Port of Entry in Haines, Alaska and a Design Build Replace Emergency Generator project at the Fairbanks Federal Building in Fairbanks, Alaska. The solicitation also includes two optional projects: a design-build switchgear and emergency generator at the Skagway Land Port of Entry, and a design-build replace emergency generator at the Alcan Land Port of Entry. The contracting agency is the General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Region 10.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PBS PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
1. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Firm Name:
Address:
| Phone Number: |
| UEI Number: |
Contact Name:
| Email Address: |
| Contact Phone Number: |
2. GENERAL WORK INFORMATION
Work performed as: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Sub Contractor ☐ Joint Venture ☐ Other (Please explain):
Percent (%) of project work performed:
If a subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):
3. CONTRACT INFORMATION
Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
Contract Type: ☐ Firm Fixed Price ☐ Cost Reimbursement ☐ Other (Please explain)
Contract Title:
Contract Location:
Award Date (mm/dd/yy):
Original Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):
Explain Schedule Change:
Original Contract Price (Award Amount):
Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):
Explain Differences:
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Complexity of Work: ☐High ☐ Med ☐ Routine
How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)
NOTE: Completed PPQs shall be sent directly to the Government’s point of contacts, Heather Bowden, Contracting Officer, via email at heather.bowden@gsa.gov, Vergel Dancel, Contract Specialist, via email at vergel.dancel@gsa.gov, prior to the Proposal closing date.
NOTE: Completed PPQ shall not be reviewed by the Offeror or subcontractor prior to submission. The PPQ must be submitted by the client/evaluator directly to the POC noted above. The PPQ shall include project owner and the contractor being rated.
Use the following adjective ratings and definitions in your evaluation of the Contractor’s performance.
| RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| NOTE |
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| (U) Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor negative. |
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
CLIENT INFORMATION
Client Information:
Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Describe the client’s role in the project:
Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):
Client’s Signature:
Instructions: Please select the adjective rating and the Yes/No reply that best reflects your evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
| 1. QUALITY: |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| 2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE: |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below.) |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| 3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (d) Overall customer satisfaction. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| 4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (c) Government Property Control. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (e) Utilization of Small Business concerns. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| 5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, or a CMc/CMc at Risk Contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? (If no, please explain in comment section below.) |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| (e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? (Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.) |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| (f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? (If yes, please explain in the comment section below.) |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| 6. SAFETY/SECURITY |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
7. SUSTAINABILITY
| Were sustainability methods, processes, or materials incorporated into the project? (If yes, please explain in the comments section below.) |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| 8. GENERAL |
| E VG S M U N |
| (a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues). |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (If there were specific issues, please explain in the comments sections below.) |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
| (c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain in the comments section below.) |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| (d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ |
COMMENTS SECTION
Please provide additional information below, and attach additional pages if necessary.
Please provide responses to the above questions (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Also please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .