A23 Attachment 05 Past Performance Questionnaire R2.docx
DOCX document 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ003421R0003
- Issued by
-
DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a multiple award construction contract opportunity. The Washington Headquarters Services Acquisition Directorate is seeking past performance information on contractors to assist in awarding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contracts under the Multiple Award Construction Contract II program. The requirement is a 100% HUBZone small business set-aside for design-build and design-bid-build construction, alteration, and repair services at government facilities in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and Adams County, Pennsylvania. Services include renovation, sustainment, restoration, modernization, repair, installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing and furniture systems, and exterior work. The agency intends to award several contracts with a ceiling value of $150 million each and a minimum guarantee of $10,000 over the potential 10-year ordering period. Task orders are expected to range from $500,000 to $15 million, and up to $20 million. Responses to the past performance questionnaire are due by July 23, 2021.
View the file
Other files
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 R2
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 23 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 2 – 9 Jul 2021
CONTRACT DATA
| Contract Number: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Contractor Name: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Contract Title: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Contractor Address: |
Click or tap here to enter text.
Click or tap here to enter text.
| Contract Value: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Contractor DUNS: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Contract Type: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Contract Award Date: |
| Click or tap to enter a date. | |
| Agency/Org. Name: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Reporting Period (Start): |
| Click or tap to enter a date. | |
| Contracting Office: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Reporting Period (End): |
| Click or tap to enter a date. |
TASK ORDER DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
| Task Order Number: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Task Order Value: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Task Order Title: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Task Order Award Date: |
| Click or tap to enter a date. |
| Reporting Period (Start): | |
| Click or tap to enter a date. | |
| Task Order Type: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Reporting Period (End): |
| Click or tap to enter a date. |
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
| Evaluator: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Contracting Officer: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Phone: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Phone: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Fax: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Fax: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Email: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Email: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Contractor Rep.: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Alt. Contractor Rep.: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Phone: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Phone: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Fax: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Fax: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| Email: | |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | Email: |
| Click or tap here to enter text. |
(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 |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | 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 Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
| ☐ | Exceptional |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | 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 Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
| ☐ | Exceptional |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | 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 Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
| ☐ | Exceptional |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | 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 Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
| ☐ | Exceptional |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | 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 Quality of Product or Service (2000 characters maximum): |
| ☐ | Exceptional |
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |
| ☐ | Very Good |
☐ Satisfactory
☐ Marginal
☐ Unsatisfactory
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .