0018-IDIQ-OwnerReferEvalForm.docx

DOCX document 19 KB Posted Jul 22, 2013

Attached to: Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) for WV & VA Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: GS-03P-13-CD-D-0018
Issued by: General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Region 3

About this file

From the source

0018-Owner Ref/Eval

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) for WV & VA, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
0018-amend_3_c.docx	DOCX document	Sep 6, 2013
0018-Amend_3b.pdf	PDF	Sep 6, 2013
0018-amend03.pdf	PDF	Sep 6, 2013
0018-Amend_2.pdf	PDF	Sep 6, 2013
0018-ADD'LBIDFORM.pdf	PDF	Sep 6, 2013
0018-Amend_3a.pdf	PDF	Sep 6, 2013
0018-IDIQ-amend07.pdf	PDF	Aug 27, 2013
0018-IDIQ-amend06_Pg2-3.pdf	PDF	Aug 23, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF30-amend06.pdf	PDF	Aug 23, 2013
0018-IDIQ-Addendum1-AENarrative.doc	DOC document	Aug 12, 2013
0018-IDIQ-PreBidSign2ndVisit.pdf	PDF	Aug 12, 2013
GSA-ABINGDON_RENOVATION-BID_FORM.pdf	PDF	Aug 12, 2013
0018-IDIQ-amend03.pdf	PDF	Aug 12, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SpecQuestforAmend.docx	DOCX document	Aug 12, 2013
0018-IDIQ-amend02.pdf	PDF	Aug 6, 2013
0018-IDIQ-WD-Abing.mht	MHT file	Jul 29, 2013
0018-IDIQ-amend01.pdf	PDF	Jul 29, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF30-01.pdf	PDF	Jul 29, 2013
0018-IDIQ-C101-SB.pdf	PDF	Jul 24, 2013
0018-IDIQ-OwnerReferEvalForm.pdf	PDF	Jul 24, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF28.pdf	PDF	Jul 24, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF28.pdf	PDF	Jul 22, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF_LLL.pdf	PDF	Jul 22, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF_LLLA.pdf	PDF	Jul 22, 2013
130524_100__Specifications.pdf	PDF	Jul 8, 2013
0018-IDIQ-C101-SB.pdf	PDF	Jul 8, 2013
Abingdon_100__Submission_Drawings_130524.pdf	PDF	Jul 8, 2013
0018-IDIQ-SF24.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-C101-SB.mht	MHT file	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-C301.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-CvrSht.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-C201-SB.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-GSA527.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-Sf1442.pdf	PDF	Jul 5, 2013
0018-IDIQ-WageDet-Alleg.mht	MHT file	Jul 5, 2013

Show all 35

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

Try for free Login

Text version

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

SOLICITATION NO.: GS-03P-13-CD-D-0018

Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity Multiple Award Large Project Construction Term Contract For Western Virginia and West Virginia

Notes:

It is the contractors responsibility to ensure that their references have completed the Owner Reference / Evaluation and to ensure that the form is submitted to GSA by the proposal due date.

Reference Evaluations must be submitted in a sealed envelope with the technical proposal.

GSA will not attempt to locate references that are not submitted by the owner.

GSA may contact any/all references submitted by the offeror. An owner is defined as a reference that is submitted by a building owner/developer or anyone who was hired by the building owner/developer to represent them during a project such as a construction manager or architect/engineering firm.

Owner Reference / Evaluation for IDIQ Multiple Award Large Project Construction Term Contract(s) Solicitation No.: GS-03P-13-CD-D-0018

PROJECT TITLE: ________________________________________________________________________

PROJECT LOCATION: ____________________________________________________________________

Interview Questions for Company Level Past Performance

a.	Timeliness of performance
b.	Cost Control
c.	Quality product
d.	Project Management

A. Timeliness of Performance –

1. Did the contractor complete the project on schedule?

_____ Contractor completed project prior to approved scheduled completion date.

_____ Contractor completed project by original scheduled completion date.

_____ Contractor failed to meet project completion date.

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. To what extent did the contractor adhere to contract delivery schedules at significant milestones?

____ Contractor exceeded scheduled milestone requirements.
____ Contractor typically delivered as scheduled but occasionally missed milestone
	dates.
____ Contractor rarely met scheduled milestone requirements.

3. How responsive was the contractor in addressing unforeseen/unanticipated conditions?

____ Contractor consistently exercised a pro-active approach.

____ Contractor demonstrated some initiative in exercising a pro-active approach.

____ Contractor never demonstrated a pro-active approach.

B. Cost Control –

1. Did the contractor submit reasonably priced change proposals?

____ Contractor consistently submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

____ Contractor typically submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

____ Contractor submitted fair and reasonably priced proposals some of the time.

____ Contractor rarely submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

2. How responsive was contractor in submitting proposals for owner initiated changes?

____ Contractor was extremely responsive in expediting proposal submissions.

____ Contractor was generally responsive in expediting proposal submissions ____ Contractor was sometimes responsive in timely submissions of change Proposals.

____ Contractor was nonresponsive in timely submissions of change proposals.

3. How reasonable were contractor initiated changes?

____ Contractor initiated changes were extremely reasonable.

____ Contractor initiated changes were typically reasonable.

____ Contractor initiated changes were reasonable some of the time.

____ Contractor initiated changes were not reasonable.

C. Quality product

1. How well has the contractor complied with contract requirements?

____ Contractor exceeded contract requirements.

____ Contractor met the minimum requirements.

____ Contractor did not meet the minimum requirements.

2. Did they conform to standards of good workmanship?

____ Contractor exceeded standards of good workmanship.

____ Contractor met the standards of good workmanship.

____ Contractor did not meet standards of good workmanship.

3. Does the contractor have the ability to adapt to changing requirements while maintaining a desired level of quality?

____ Contractor was extremely effective in adapting to changing requirements.

____ Contractor was effective in adapting to changing requirements.

____ Contractor was ineffective in adapting to changing requirements.

D. Project Management

1. How well did the contractor work with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors?

____ Contractor worked extremely well with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors)

____ Contractor was generally cooperative with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors.

____ Contractor did not work well with the owner and the owner’s technical advisors.

2. Was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of project related third party entities (i.e. tenants)?

____ Contractor was very cooperative.

____ Contractor was generally cooperative.

____ Contractor was not cooperative.

_____________________________________________________________________________

3. Did the contractor maintain a consistent on site management/project team throughout the duration of the project?

____ No adjustments were made: contractor maintained the same team throughout

the duration of the project.

____ Minor adjustments to the support team were made during the project.

____ Significant changes to the key personnel of the project team were made during

the project.

____ Contractor maintained no consistency in key personnel during the project.

Evaluated By: __________________________________________

Name and Title: __________________________________________

Organization: __________________________________________

Interviewed By: ____________________________________________

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.