Attach_G_-_PPQ.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Range Road 212 Replace Watering Creek Bridge Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA282317R4029
About this file
PPQ
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Con_Site_Sign_In_Roster.pdf | ||
| Attachment_E.pdf | ||
| Attachment_A.pdf | ||
| FA282317R4029.pdf | ||
| Attach_J_-_EAFB_90.pdf | ||
| Attachment_C.pdf | ||
| Attach_F_-_PPI.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_D_-_Eglin_Language.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_H_-_FRQ.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_B.pdf | ||
| Atch_I.xls | XLS spreadsheet |
Show all 11
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
ATTACHMENT G
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Request for Proposal: FA282317R4029 FTFA 081140 Range Road 212 Replace Watering Creek Bridge Eglin AFB, FL
1. Name of Contractor:
Contract or Identifying Number:
Title/Description of Contract:
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.
A. Did the contractor have any non-conformance issues? If so, what kind? ____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Did the contractor have adequate resources to complete the required performance? ____________________________________________________________________________________
C. Were there issues with the subcontractor’s testing lab and/or material suppliers? ____________________________________________________________________________________
D. Did the contractor submit required documents on time and answer questions in a timely manner? ____________________________________________________________________________________
| Assessment | Definition |
| Substantial Confidence (SC) | |
| Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, this customer has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort for us again. |
Satisfactory Confidence
(SAT)
Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, this customer has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort for us again.
Limited Confidence
(LC)
Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, this customer has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort for us again.
No Confidence
(NC)
Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, this customer has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort for us again.
| Unknown Confidence (Neutral) (UC) |
| No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. |
Based upon the assessment definitions above, indicate your assessment of the contractor’s performance on your contract described above. Your assessment should consider the contractor’s performance in accordance with the contractual requirements. Circle all that apply.
CONTRACTOR’S NAME: __________________________ CONTRACT NO.: _______________________
| 01 |
| Contractor developed realistic progress schedules & completed the project within the established schedule. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 02 |
| Contractor provided submittals in a timely manner. Submittals were well researched and clearly identified the proposed item. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 03 |
| Contractor provided timely and accurate payrolls with no known labor violations (Davis-Bacon Act) or labor claims. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 04 |
| Contractor provided experienced managers and supervisors, with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 05 |
| Contractor hired quality subcontractors and effectively managed them. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 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. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 07 |
| Contractor provided effective quality control, which resulted in a quality-finished product. |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 08 |
| Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain in comments section, |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
| 09 |
| Would you hire this contractor again? If no, explain in comments section |
| SC |
| SAT |
| LC |
| NC |
| UC |
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 .