J.3 Past Performance Form 2.pdf
PDF 187 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 69056724R000007
About this file
This is a Past Performance Form 2 template used to evaluate contractor performance for the Idaho, Montana, and Surrounding Areas Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). The form includes a comprehensive rating system with five evaluation levels: Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, Very Good, and Exceptional, with detailed definitions for each rating level.
The evaluation criteria cover four main areas: Technical (quality of workmanship, environmental sensitivity, equipment/materials), Cost Control, Schedule/Timeliness, and Management (QC program, specification compliance, problem resolution, regulatory compliance). Additional evaluation areas include Small Business Contracting goals and participation requirements. The form also includes yes/no questions regarding customer satisfaction and safety commitment. Evaluators must provide explanations in the remarks section for any Unsatisfactory or Marginal ratings. The form is structured as a standardized template with rating scales for each performance category but contains no actual performance data.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| QA_1-24-2025.pdf | ||
| QA_1-22-2025_2.pdf | ||
| QA_1-22-2025.pdf | ||
| Amendment A003.pdf | ||
| QA_1-16-2025.pdf | ||
| QA_1-13-2025.pdf | ||
| QA_1-10-2025.pdf | ||
| QA_1-7-2025.pdf | ||
| QA_1-6-2025.pdf | ||
| Amendment A002.pdf | ||
| Amendment A001.pdf | ||
| J.4 Sample Project_MT NP GLAC HQ(3).pdf | ||
| RFP_69056724R000007_ID MT MATOC_Final.pdf | ||
| J.2 Technical Information Form 1.pdf | ||
| J.1 Master Subcontracting Plan.pdf | ||
| J.4 Sample Project Plans.pdf |
Show all 16
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 J.3 Past Performance Form 2
Past Performance Form 2
Subject Line “Source Selection Information: Idaho, Montana, and Surrounding Areas
Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)
Project: Idaho, Montana and Surrounding Areas IDIQ MATOC
Evaluation Factor Rating System. Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the following ratings:
N/A=Not Applicable U=Unsatisfactory M=Marginal S=Satisfactory VG=Very Good E=Exceptional
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 were effective.
• 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.
For ratings of “unsatisfactory” and “Marginal” please provide a brief explanation in the remarks section.
Company Name:
Project Name:
Submitted by:
Name
Phone:
Email:
Agency:
Technical (quality of product or service)
How would you rate the contractor’s quality of workmanship for work performed?
N/A U M S VG E
How would you rate the ability of the contractor to work within an environmentally sensitive area?
N/A U M S VG E
How would you rate the ability of the contractor to provide the right equipment and material to perform the required work?
N/A U M S VG E
Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements).
How would you rate the contractor’s ability to control costs within the confine of the contract?
N/A U M S VG E
Schedule/Timeliness
How would you rate the contractor’s adherence to the approved schedule? N/A U M S VG E
Management
Did the contractor’s QC program effectively monitor all work?
N/A U M S VG E
Did the contractor complete work in accordance with the specifications?
N/A U M S VG E
How would you rate the contractor’s ability to promptly resolve problems?
N/A
U
M
S
VG
E
Did the contractor comply with all known laws and regulations?
N/A
U
M
S
VG
E
Small Business Contracting
Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories?
N/A U M S VG E
Utilized Small Business Concerns and met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/order?
N/A U M S VG E
Other:
Customer Satisfaction: Was the
Contractor committed to customer satisfaction?
Yes No
Safety: Was the Contractor committed to running a safe operation?
Yes No
Remarks:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .