Final PP Questionnaires.doc

ATTACHMENT 1: FIRM’S PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection.

Please complete this Questionnaire and send by facsimile [(202) 205-3430] or electronic mail [ bonnie.echoles@gsa.gov ]to:

Bonnie E. Echoles, Contracting Officer, GSA, NCR

301 7th Street, SW; Room 4606 (WP)

Washington, DC 20407

Desired Response Date:

July 31, 2009

When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM OFFEROR for US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM – ST. ELIZABETHS CAMPUS

5. CM CONTRACT START DATE / COMPLETION DATE

6. CM CONTRACT VALUE (AT AWARD / FINAL VALUE):

2. OWNER’S NAME AND ADDRESS

7. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT VALUE (AT AWARD / FINAL VALUE):

8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:

3. PROJECT NAME:

9. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT’S KEY CHARACTERISTICS:

Please add a continuation page if additional space is necessary.

TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE (REFERENCE)

10. EVALUATION: a. EVALUATOR'S NAME, POSITION DURING PROJECT EXECUTION ( Project Manager/ COR/ Other) AND ORGANIZATION:

b. EVALUATOR'S PHONE NUMBER: c. EVALUATOR’S FAX NUMBER:

d. EVALUATOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: e. MONTHS PERFORMANCE MONITORED BY EVALUATOR:

Did the construction project contain any of the following characteristics?

The project involved the new construction of a public memorial or civic public square that defines an urban space.

The project had a significant landscape and hardscape component.

The project was new construction at a restricted/congested urban site requiring extensive coordination with adjacent landowners/occupants.

The CM firm provided Design Phase project management and design review involving some or all of the following disciplines:

a. Architecture (yes/no)

b. Landscape Architecture (yes/no)

c. Lighting Design (yes/no)

d. Structural Engineering (yes/no)

e. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineering (yes/no)

The project was a new construction project that incorporated high-end finishes with extremely high attention to detail and high standards for workmanship.

Questions: (Some questions may not apply to roles)

Experience:

1. What was the actual work performed by the contractor? Who was the Senior Project Manager on the project?

2. Did the key personnel ensure that the finished product met your requirements as set forth in the construction contract documents? Did the management cooperate with the administration of routine matters and unexpected difficulties?

3. Did the contractor demonstrate adequate technical knowledge for the referenced project?

Performance:

[Using the following scale, please rate the following areas of performance. The scale is defined with each factor.]

EX- Excellent; VG- Very Good; S- Satisfactory; MG- Marginal; US- Unsatisfactory; NO- Not Observed

4.

How effective was the contractor in identifying and resolving potential problems?

US – Contractor failed to identify and resolve problems resulting in extensive modifications, claims or cost/schedule overruns.

EX - Contractor was proactive in identifying potential problems and recommending solutions to minimize cost/schedule impacts.

Rating: ________ Comments:____________________________________________________________________

5.

How effective was the contractor in managing the project’s budget and controlling costs?

US – Contractor failed to manage the budget and control costs.

EX - Contractor maintained tight control of budget and costs and was proactive in identifying potential costs and recommending solutions to minimize cost/schedule impacts

Rating: ________ Comments:____________________________________________________________________

6.

How effective was the contractor in maintaining project quality, enforcing the contract documents, and identifying and resolving defects and omissions to the owner’s satisfaction and in a timely fashion?

US – Contractor did not adequately enforce the contract documents and left resolution of defects and omissions until the punch list.

EX - Contractor actively enforced the contract documents, maintained high standards for quality and workmanship, and quickly resolved defects and omissions, leaving a minimal punch list at project completion.

Rating: ________ Comments:____________________________________________________________________

7.

Rate the contractor’s overall management of the project.

US – Contractor was often not available and work seemed to suffer significantly due to lack of management capabilities.

EX - Contractor’s work flowed smoothly, management was always available and responsive and the project was efficiently and effectively completed.

Rating: ________ Comments:____________________________________________________________________

8. If you had a choice, would you contract with the contractor again? Why or Why not?

9. What are the company’s strong points, or what did you like about them?

10. What are the company’s weak points and what do you like least about them?

11. If you were GSA, would you contract with this contractor? Why or Why not?

12. Do you know of any other projects performed by this contractor?

13. In summary would you choose to describe the quality of their services and overall performance as:

____ a. significantly better than acceptable (EX);

____ b. slightly better than acceptable (VG);

____ c. acceptable (S);

____ d. slightly less than acceptable (MG); or

____ e. entirely unacceptable (US).

ATTACHMENT 2: individual’s PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection.

Please complete this Questionnaire and send by facsimile [(202) 205-3430] or electronic mail [ bonnie.echoles@gsa.gov ]to:

Bonnie E. Echoles, Contracting Officer, GSA, NCR

301 7th Street, SW; Room 4606 (WP)

Washington, DC 20407

Desired Response Date:

July 31, 2009

When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.

TO BE COMPLETED BY PROSPECTIVE CMa CONTRACT OFFEROR FOR THE EISENHOWER NATIONAL MEMORIAL PROJECT

5. CM CONTRACT START DATE / COMPLETION DATE:

6. CM CONTRACT VALUE (AT AWARD / FINAL VALUE):

2. OWNER’S NAME AND ADDRESS:

7. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT VALUE (AT AWARD / FINAL VALUE):

8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:

3. PROJECT NAME:

9. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT’S KEY CHARACTERISTICS:

Please add a continuation page if additional space is necessary.

TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE (REFERENCE)

10. EVALUATION: a. EVALUATOR'S NAME, POSITION DURING PROJECT EXECUTION ( Project Manager/ COR/ Other) AND ORGANIZATION:

b. EVALUATOR'S PHONE NUMBER: c. EVALUATOR’S FAX NUMBER:

d. EVALUATOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: e. MONTHS PERFORMANCE MONITORED BY EVALUATOR:

Questions: (Some questions may not apply to roles)

1. How long was this individual involved with this project?

2. What were his/her duties on this project?

3. Describe how this person met the project milestones and if they were proactive in the management of the project, their responsiveness.

4. Describe the technical knowledge of this person during performance of this contract. (ADP skills, architectural/engineering problem solving, presenting information, etc.)

5. Describe the person’s proficiency in business controls (contracting, operations, accounting, and quality).

6. Describe the degree of difficulty or complicated aspects of the project (i.e. secure working areas, difficult coordination, etc.) and the person’s performance with difficult and complicated aspects of the project.

7. Were there any notable problems with this person’s performance, such as construction related matters that they could not resolve, how did they do at problem solving, etc.?

8. Describe why you would or would not contract with this person again for the same services.