Exhibit2-PastPerformanceEval.xls
XLS spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Pac Hwy POE Breezeway Expansion
- Solicitation number
- GS-10P-08-LT-R-0003
About this file
Exhibit 2 - Past Performance
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-ProposalConferenceAttendance.pdf | ||
| RFP.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit1-RecentExperience.doc | DOC document | |
| SF1442.doc | DOC document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| EXHIBIT 2: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | ||||||
| Contractor (Prime/AE) Evaluated: | ||||||
| Project Title or Contract Number: | ||||||
| EVALUATOR DATA | ||||||
| Name: | ||||||
| Address: | ||||||
| Phone Number: | ||||||
| Email Address: | ||||||
| Position held or function in relation to projected cited above: | ||||||
| Performance Attributes | RATING | |||||
| E | VG | S | M | U | NA | |
| 1. The contractor’s overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness and cooperative conduct. |
COMMENTS:
2. The relationship between the contractor and owner’s contract team.
COMMENTS:
3. The contractor’s on-site management and coordination of subcontractors.
COMMENTS:
4. The contractor’s performance on delivery of quality work.
COMMENTS:
5. The contractor’s quality control (CQC) system.
COMMENTS:
6. The contractor’s ability to meet the performance schedule.
COMMENTS:
| 7. What did the contractor do to improve schedule problems, if any? |
| 8. The contractor’s ability to provide the required work at a reasonable total price. |
COMMENTS:
9. The contractor’s compliance with labor standards, if applicable.
COMMENTS:
10. The contractor’s compliance with safety standards and/or number of incidents.
COMMENTS
| 11. Has the contractor been given any of the following: Cure notice, show cause, letters of reprimand, suspension of payments, terminations? If yes, please explain | YES | NO |
| 12. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If no, please state reasons for not recommending this contractor additional work. | YES | NO |
| 13. Was the customer satisfied with the end product? | YES | NO |
| 14. Has the contractor been provided an opportunity to discuss any negative performance ratings? If so, what were the results? | YES | NO |
| 15. OVERALL RATING | ||
| The contractor listed above is being considered in a Source Selection by the U.S. General Services Administration, Northwest/Artic Region. Auburn, WA. It would be appreciated if you would provide us with comments regarding the contractor’s past performance. Your comments are considered Source Selection Sensitive, therefore, you are advised that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (3.104-5) prohibits the release of the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance. In order to maintain the integrity of the source selection process, respectfully request that you do not divulge the name of the contractor nor discuss your comments on this questionnaire with any other individuals. |
Handwritten completion of this questionnaire in ink is acceptable, if legible.
Please include evaluation of contractor’s performance based solely on the performance for which the contractor was/is liable. Please do not let factors beyond the control of the contractor that have resulted in performance delays or other problems bias the evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
The following is a definition of the rating system used:
Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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.
Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.
Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or subelement contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
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.
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 were ineffective.
In completing this questionnaire please mark the box corresponding to your rating: E=Exceptional, VG=Very Good, S=Satisfactory, M=Marginal, U=Unsatisfactory, NA=Not Applicable
Please provide clear and concise narrative explanations (both positive and negative) for your answers. This is especially important for any rating above or below satisfactory.
&LRFP #: GS-10P-08-LT-R-0003&RPage &P of &N
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .