Attach_8_APPENDIX_B.pdf
PDF 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Paving IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2823-14-R-4019
About this file
Appendix B
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 26
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
APPENDIX B
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Request for Proposal: FA2823-14-R-4019 Paving Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), FTFA 14-1091, Eglin AFB, FL 32542
1. Name of Contractor:
Contract or Identifying Number:
Title/Description of Contract:
Based upon the definitions below, indicate your assessment of the contractor’s performance on your contract described on Appendix A. Your assessment should consider the contractor’s performance in accordance with the contractual requirements.
2. Brief description of scope of work:
EVALUATION: Please rate the Contractor utilizing the guide below. Explanatory narratives for as many responses as possible would be appreciated. These narratives need not be lengthy, just detailed. Attach additional pages if more space is needed.
Assessment Definition
Substantial Satisfaction
(SS)
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, we have a high expectation that the offeror has successfully performed our required effort.
Satisfactory Satisfaction
(SAT)
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, we have a reasonable expectation that the offeror has successfully performed our required effort.
Limited Satisfaction
(LS)
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, we have a low expectation that the offeror has l successfully performed our required effort.
No Satisfaction
(NS)
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, we have no expectation that the offeror has successfully performed our required effort.
Unknown Satisfaction (Neutral) (US)
No recent/relevant performance record is available for the offeror’s performance and/or is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
CONTRACTOR’S NAME: __________________________ CONTRACT NO.: ___________________________ 01 Contractor developed realistic progress schedules & completed the project within the established schedule.
SS SAT LS NS US
02 Contractor provided submittals in a timely manner. Submittals were well researched and clearly identified the proposed item.
SS SAT LS NS US
03 Contractor provided timely and accurate payrolls with no known labor violations (Davis-Bacon Act) or labor claims.
SS SAT LS NS US
04 Contractor provided experienced managers and supervisors, with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.
SS SAT LS NS US
05 Contractor hired quality subcontractors and effectively managed them.
SS SAT LS NS US
06 Contractor identified problems as they occurred. Suggested approaches to problems. Displayed initiative and cooperation to solve problems. Provided adequate information and pricing for change orders and negotiated them in good faith.
SS SAT LS NS US
07 Contractor provided effective quality control, which resulted in a quality-finished product.
SS SAT LS NS US
08 Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain in comments section, SS SAT LS NS US
09 Would you hire this contractor again? If no, explain in comments section
SS SAT LS NS US
OVERALL RATING: ______________________________
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF OVERALL RATING GIVEN:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Name of Person Completing Evaluation:
Base/Company: Date:
Position Title/Grade: Phone:
Email: Fax:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .