PAST PERFORMANCE.doc

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions for Past Performance Reference:

1. You have been designated as the point of contact for information relative to the past performance history/experience of an offeror competing in a Multiple Award Task Order Construction Contract (MATOCC) for Base Support Unit Kodiak, Alaska for the U.S. Coast Guard.

2. Please complete the attached Past Performance Questionnaire and return it to the USCG Contracting Officer at the facsimile number or e-mail address shown below.

3. It is very important that you complete and return this Questionnaire at your very first opportunity. Please make every effort to be thorough in your answers/comments.

4. The information you provide is necessary and is considered an important component of the evaluation process. The information contained herein shall be treated as source selection sensitive and will not be provided to the contractor(s).

5. You may be contacted by the U.S. Coast Guard during the course of the evaluation process for further information. In the event you are a Federal Agency and you have performance evaluation records generated under FAR 42.15, please forward these records to me concurrent with the return of the Questionnaire.

6. If you have any additional questions please contact me as shown below.

Thank you, MAGGIE M. WILSON

Contracting Officer

Shore Maintenance Command

915 Second Avenue, Room 2664

Seattle, WA 98174-1011

FAX: 206-220-7390

PH: 206-220-7424

E-mail: Maggie.M.Wilson@uscg.mil

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Contractor’s Name:

Address:

Telephone Number:

Point of Contact:

B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION

Name:

Title:

Organization and Address:

Telephone Number:

Fax:

E-mail:

C. CONTRACT INFORMATION

Contract Number/Title:

Period of Performance:

Dollar Amount of Contract:

Services Performed:

D. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Please rate the contractors’ performance using the following ratings:

Neutral – No relevant performance is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating.

Superior – Based on an offeror’s performance, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror successfully performed the required effort. Performance demonstrated innovative, comprehensive approach which clearly exceeded the contract requirements.

Satisfactory – Based on the offeror’s performance some doubt exists that the offeror successfully performed the required effort. Performance demonstrated acceptable approach which met the contract requirements.

Unsatisfactory – Based on the offeror’s performance extreme doubt exists that the offeror performed the required effort. Performance failed to meet one or more requirements or required more than normal government interaction to meet performance objectives.

1. Quality of Product or Service:

a. Quality of Workmanship:

b. Quality of Documentation:

2. Timeliness of Performance:

a. Adherence to Approved Schedule:

b. Completion of Punch List and Project Close Out Activities:

c. Warranty Response:

3. Business Relations/Practices:

a. Management of Resources/Personnel:

b. Coordination and Control of Subcontractors:

c. Effectiveness of Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality Control/Environmental)

4. Customer Satisfaction:

a. Communications effectiveness with customer:

b. Cooperation and Responsiveness to customer needs:

5. Compliance with Environmental /Labor/Safety Requirements:

a. Adequacy and Implementation of Safety Plan:

b. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements:

c. Compliance with all applicable labor laws:

6. If this was a government contract, did the contractor receive any Contract Discrepancy Reports, Letters of Concern or Cure Notices?

If yes, please describe:

7. If given the opportunity would you award another contract to this contractor?

Please explain your response: