Attachment C2 PPQ Design Experience.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NORTHWEST MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (NW MACC) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N4425521R4000
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a lead design firm and details of a related indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple award construction contract opportunity with the Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The past performance questionnaire is to be completed by a previous client and submitted directly to the offeror or Naval Facilities Engineering Command to assess the contractor's performance on a prior design project. It requests ratings on various performance criteria. The construction contract is a partial small business set-aside to provide new construction, renovation, alteration, demolition and repair work of facilities in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming, with most work anticipated in Washington State. The annual size standard is $36.5 million. Response is requested through the federal procurement system.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
NORTHWEST MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (NW MACC) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment E.2
NAVFAC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ) – Lead Design Firm
CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)
1. Contractor Information:
| Firm Name: |
| Address: |
DUNS:
| Phone Number: | |
| Point of Contact: | Contact Phone Number: |
2. Work Performed as: |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub Contractor |_| Joint Venture |_| Other (Explain)
Percent of project work performed:
If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):
3. Contract Information
Contract Number:
Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):
| Title: |
| Location: |
| Award Date (mm/dd/yy): |
| Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): |
| Award Amount: |
| Final Price: |
4. Project Description:
CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)
5. Client Information
| Name: |
| Organization/Title: |
| Phone Number: |
| Email Address: |
6. Describe the client’s role in the project:
7. Date Questionnaire was completed:
NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT
YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
RATING DEFINITION NOTE
| (E) Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. 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. |
| (VG) Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (S) Satisfactory |
| Performance meets minimum 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. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| (M) Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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. |
| A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| (U) 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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. |
| (N) Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract |
| Rating will be neither positive nor negative. |
Rev Apr 2017 2
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE LIMITATIONS AS OUTLINED IN FAR 2.101 & 3.104 APPLY
PLEASE MARK THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS
YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.
| E |
| V |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
| 1. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 2. Compliance with contractual terms and conditions. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 3. Compliance with contract design delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 4. Quality/integrity of technical data/report preparation efforts. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 5. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 6. Design documents (plans and specifications) accurate and coordinated. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 7. Plans clear and detailed sufficiently. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 8. Suitability of design. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 9. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program). |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 10. Effectiveness of management of design subconsultants? |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 11. Designer was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports). |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 12. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 13. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
14. Designer incorporated innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client.
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 15. Ability to hire/apply a qualified workforce to this effort. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 16. Ability to retain a qualified workforce on this effort |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| 17. If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below. | ||
| |_| Yes | |_| No |
| 18. Have there been any indications that the designer has had any financial problem? If yes, please explain below. | ||
| |_| Yes | |_| No |
| 19. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
| |_| |
Any additional comments related to the contractor’s performance:
Client’s Signature:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .