7_CODI_PP_Questionaire.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 3.104

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

TO:

RETURN TO:

SUBJECT:

50 CONS/LGCA

ATTN: Front Range Paving Team 210 Falcon Parkway, Ste 2116, Schriever AFB, CO 80912 michael.kilbourn.2@us.af.mil; susan.wright.2@us.af.mil

Contract__________________

1. Your assistance is respectfully requested in providing information on the attached performance questionnaire. The importance of your opinion cannot be overstated. This survey measures the past performance of

____________________, a prospective offeror on our request for proposal (RFP)

FA2550-18-R-1004. The subsequent contract will require the successful contractor to provide Paving Services for the Front Range Installations.

2. For the purpose of satisfying the requirement to accurately measure past performance, contracts, leasing, or subcontracts in which performance has occurred by the aforementioned offeror in the past three (3) years are being surveyed.

3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION: Fill it in by hand, or type and please return the results to either adress listed above, e-mail, or send by facsimile to commercial phone number (719) 567-3438, DSN 560-3438. Point of

Contact is 2d Lt Michael Kilbourn (719) 567- 3811. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Explanation of codes:

Rating Performance Level Definition

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Circle the appropriate letter for each item on the questionaire and provide narrative justification.

PLEASE RETURN NO LATER THAN THE PROPOSED CLOSING DATE

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

Joint Forces Paving for Colorado DoD Installations (CODI)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Reference Name:

a. Address:

b. Phone:

c. Point of Contact:

d. Contract Title/Number:

e. Contractor Name:________________________________________________________

f. Contractor Adress/Phone:__________________________________________________

g. Period of Performance/Dates:_______________________________________________

h. Type of service:_________________________________________________________

i. Contract Value Start: End:

j. Type of contract (RFP, IDIQ)

k. Modifications/Change Orders:

l. Reason for any Change:

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

Past Performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as a organization, has (1) has satisfied its customers, and (2) complied with state, federal laws and regulations. The

Government will determine this with the following questions.

1. How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance in terms of quality, timeliness, professionalism, and courtesy?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

2. How would you rate the overall quality and reliabilty of the services performed by the contractor?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

3. How would you rate the contractor ability to recruit and maintain qualified personnel?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

4. What was the contractors overall compliance with contract terms and conditions?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

5. Delivery schedules. Did the contractor meet performance schedules?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

6. How effective was the contractor in building and maintaining positive working relationships with your company or the Government?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

7. How did the contractor act/react with the customer i.e. CO, CA, QAE, etc?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

8. How would you rate the Contract Manager/Project Manager’s handling of short notice or special requests in a professional cooperative and timely manner with adequate resources?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

9. Has the contractor ever been given a cure notice? A suspension or show cause notice?

Yes ____ (please explain) No ____

Comments:

10. Does the contractor have record/history of compliance with Enviromental, Safety, and

Quality Control while complying with all local, state, Federal, and Government regulations?

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Comments:

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

11. Based on this contractor’s overall performance would you award this contractor another contract?

Yes ____ (please explain) No ____

Comments:

12. Circle the letter that best describes your customer satisfaction:

a) Unsatifactory: Customer refused to accept end product.

b) Marginal: customer sissatisfaction with end product/service evidenced by written or verbal conversations.

c) Satisfactory: customer expressed no displeasure with performance of the contractor.

d) Very Good: customer expressed verbal or written appreciation of the Contractor’s performance.

e) Exceptional: customer expressed admiration of the contractor’s performance and stated he/she would be happy if the Contractor was obtained for future projects.

Comments/Remarks:

13. Circle the letter that best describes your experiences with the Contractor based on the statements below:

a) They were an unsatisfactory/unacceptable Contractor. We would not want to contract with this firm again under any circumstances.

b) They were a marginal Contractor. Numerous problems developed that were a result of their lack of cooperation and failure to perform work as required.

c) They were a satisfactory/acceptable Contractor who met the minimum requirements of the contract. Performance deficiencies improved when identified by the Government.

Although rework/warranty issues were performed, an aggressive inspection program was required to ensure compliance.

d) They were a Very Good Contractor whom we would not hesitate to enter into another contract. Problems encountered were minor and solutions were found with little difficulty.

e) They are an Exceptional Contracting firm in every aspect. Problems were solved in a spirit of teamwork. Quality work, timely actions, and complete documentations were routinely achieved. We would pay premium prices to contract with them again.

Attachment #7 Solicitation Number FA2550-18-R-1004

Comments/Remarks: