A23 Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire R1.docx

DOCX document 24 KB Posted

Attached to
WHS Multiple Award Construction Contract II (MACC II)
Solicitation number
HQ003421R0003
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire and federal contract opportunity notice. The past performance questionnaire is for a contractor providing unspecified services to the Washington Headquarters Services Acquisition Directorate. It requests a reviewer to provide ratings and comments on quality, schedule, cost control, management, small business utilization, and regulatory compliance.

The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation for the Washington Headquarters Services Multiple Award Construction Contract II program. It is a 100% HUBZone small business set-aside seeking proposals for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contracts worth up to $150 million each. Work will include renovation, sustainment and repair of facilities in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The minimum guarantee is $10,000 and task orders are expected to range from $500,000 to $15 million, and up to $20 million. The base period is three years with three two-year options and a final one-year option, for a total 10-year ordering period.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
A23 Attachment 14 Pass-Fail Gateway Criteria Checklist R1.docx DOCX document
A23 Attachment 09 Davis-Bacon WD VA20210013 R7 (6 Aug 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit H DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification - Post 7 R1.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 18 Answered RFIs R2 (18 Aug 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0011 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 11 (20 Aug 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0010 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 10 (27 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 10 Davis-Bacon WD PA20210073 R9 (23 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 18 Answered RFIs R1 (26 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 09 Davis-Bacon WD VA20210013 R6 (23 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit A SOW Post 7 R2 2021_0726 (Final).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit K Pre-Proposal RFI 064 TR Room Location (9 Jun 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit F Contractor Modification Price Proposal Template (Jul 2021).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
A23 Attachment 10 Davis-Bacon WD PA20210073 R8 (16 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 18 Answered RFIs (20 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0009 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 9 (20 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit A SOW Post 7 R1 2021_0714 (Final).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0008 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 8 (19 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire R2.docx DOCX document
A23 Attachment 17 DD2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 16 Joint Venture Participant Concerns Small Business Representations.docx DOCX document
A23 Attachment 10 Davis-Bacon WD PA20210073 R6 (9 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 15 Sample Client Authorization Language.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 11 Key Personnel Qualifications (Seed Project) R2.docx DOCX document
A23 HQ003421R0003-0007 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 7 (9 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 14 Pass-Fail Gateway Criteria Checklist R0.docx DOCX document
A23 HQ003421R0003-0006 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 6 (2 Jul 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 11 Key Personnel Qualifications (Seed Project).docx DOCX document
A23 Exhibit B Seed Project Attachments (29 Mar 2021) - CUI.zip ZIP file
A23 Attachment 06 DD Form 254 MACC II IDIQ Pentagon R1 (Draft).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 02 Pentagon SOW Attachments.zip ZIP file
A23 Exhibit G Experience-Offeror (12 Jun 2021).docx DOCX document
A23 Exhibit I 1st Floor Plan - Portal 7 RRMC-21-00010 17 May 2021 R1 - CUI.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 11 Key Personnel Qualifications (Seed Project).docx DOCX document
A23 Exhibit J Site Walk Sign-in Sheets_Redacted.pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit H DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification - Post 7 R0.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 01 Pentagon Requirements Document Sample.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 09 Davis-Bacon WD VA20210013 R5 (4 Jun 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 07 DD Form 254 MACC II IDIQ RRMC R1 (Draft).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0005 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 5 (25 Jun 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0004 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 4 (17 Jun 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0003 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 3 (17 Jun 2021).pdf PDF
A23 HQ003421R0003-0002 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 2 (27 May 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit E Construction Cost Estimate Template (May 2021).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
A23 HQ003421R0003-0001 WHS MACC II Solicitation Amend 1 (24 May 2021).pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 13 Site Walk RFI Template.docx DOCX document
A23 Attachment 07 DD Form 254 RRMC.pdf PDF
A23 Exhibit E Construction Cost Estimate Template (Apr 2021).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
A23 Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx DOCX document
A23 Attachment 01 Pentagon_Specific Requirements.pdf PDF
A23 Attachment 06 DD Form 254 Pentagon.pdf PDF
Show 40 more

Latest 50 of 67 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.

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

ATTACHMENT 05

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

This is a past performance questionnaire for Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Acquisition Directorate to obtain past performance information on the contractor listed below. You should have received this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter from the contractor listed below asking for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire.

Information obtained in this questionnaire is for the sole purpose of evaluating the contractor’s past performance history to assist WHS in determining best value for award of a contract resulting from our solicitation. As an evaluator of the contractor’s past performance, your participation in this questionnaire is greatly appreciated.

INSTRUCTIONS

To complete this questionnaire, the contractor should:

Complete the CONTRACT DATA section on Page 2

Forward this questionnaire along with a Client Authorization Letter to the reviewer.

To complete this questionnaire, the reviewer should:

1. Review the CONTRACT DATA section on Page 2.

Review and complete the ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION section on Page 2.

Complete the EVALUATION FACTORS section starting on Page 5 using the RATINGS on Pages 3-4 based on the Contractor Performance Rating System (CPARS).

Evaluate and assign a rating for Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small business, and Regulatory Compliance.

Include a narrative for each rating if appropriate.

Return the questionnaire by email to juan.c.gomez2.civ@mail.mil and kyle.r.blake5.civ@mail.mil by 9 July 2021 at 3:00 PM ET or the response date indicated for solicitation HQ003421R0003 on sam.gov.

QUESTIONS

If you have any questions about completing or submitting this questionnaire, please contact the Senior Contract Specialist for this acquisition: Juan Gomez at juan.c.gomez2.civ@mail.mil.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Solicitation HQ003421R0003

Form Revision 1 – 17 Jun 2021

CONTRACT DATA

Contract Number:

Contractor Name:

Contract Title:

Contractor Address:

Contract Value:

Contractor DUNS:

Contract Type:

Contract Award Date:

Agency/Org. Name:

Reporting Period (Start):

Contracting Office:

Reporting Period (End):

TASK ORDER DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

Task Order Number:

Task Order Value:

Task Order Title:

Task Order Award Date:

Reporting Period (Start):

Task Order Type:

Reporting Period (End):

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Evaluator:

Contracting Officer:

Phone:

Phone:

Fax:

Fax:

Email:

Email:

Contractor Rep.:

Alt. Contractor Rep.:

Phone:

Phone:

Fax:

Fax:

Email:

Email:

(Next page)

RATINGS

The following ratings and definitions apply to the Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business and Regulatory Compliance factors:

Rating
Definition
Note
Exceptional
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
Very Good
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.
To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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.
To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).
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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).
N/A
N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.
Please explain all ratings of N/A

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Quality of Product or Service. Quality reflects the contractor’s management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. Assess the Contractor's conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g. commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards).

RATING
Provide comments on Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

2. Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance). This evaluation of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions. This element applies to contract/order closeout activities as well as contract/order performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the evaluation of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract/order schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation.

RATING
Provide comments on Schedule (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

3. Cost Control (Not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment). Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts/orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources, in each work effort should be assessed.

RATING
Provide comments on Cost Control (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

4. Management. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

RATING
Provide comments on Management (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

5. Utilization of Small Business (Not applicable if contractor is a small business or if the contract did not require a Subcontracting Plan). Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses or Small Businesses) to participate in contract/order performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract/order.

RATING
Provide comments on Utilization of Small Business (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

6. Regulatory Compliance (e.g failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions, late or nonpayment to subcontractors, trafficking violations, tax delinquency, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, suspension and debarments). Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes, using the Evaluation Ratings Definitions above. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental (example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract terms and conditions.

RATING
Provide comments on Regulatory Compliance (2000 characters maximum):

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .