P1 Factor 4 - Past Performance (Questionnaire).docx

DOCX document 32 KB Posted

Attached to
Z2DA--Interventional Imaging Surgical Suite-- Design-Build--Unrestricted Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
36C26121R0096
Issued by
Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 21

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire for evaluation of offerors responding to solicitation number 36C26121R0096 for design-build of an interventional imaging surgical suite at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Fresno, California. The solicitation requires offerors to provide all supervision, labor, materials, services, tools, equipment, and transportation necessary to upgrade operating room number four into an interventional imaging surgical suite. Respondents to the past performance questionnaire are asked to evaluate offerors on quality, schedule, customer satisfaction, management, cost, safety, and general performance based on prior contracts using a rating scale. Responses are due to the contracting officer by December 3, 2021 to be considered in evaluating proposals.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Z2DA--Interventional Imaging Surgical Suite-- Design-Build--Unrestricted, newest first.
File Type Posted
36C26121R0096 0004.docx DOCX document
RFI Reponses Supporting Documents--12.17.21.pdf PDF
SOW (Rev.1) Design-Build Interventional Imaging--12.17.21.pdf PDF
BLDG files - Standard--12.17.21.zip ZIP file
VA Responses to RFIs (complete)--36C26121R0096--12.17.21.pdf PDF
36C26121R0096 0003.docx DOCX document
36C26121R0096 0002.docx DOCX document
Corrected Responsibility - Contractor Certification Regarding Safety and Environmental.pdf PDF
VA Partial Responses to RFIs--36C26121R0096.pdf PDF
FR-01-03PW_480v-Third Floor.pdf PDF
36C26121R0096 0001.docx DOCX document
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM--36C26121R0096.docx DOCX document
SOW and RFP Documents--DB Interventional Imaging Surgical Suites.pdf PDF
S02 36C26121R0096--DB Interventional Imaging Surgical Suite--Unrestricted.docx DOCX document
P2 Factor 1 - Key Personnel Qualifications Resumes.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
P2 Factor 2 - Divisional Construction Costs.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
VHA_DIRECTIVE_1193_D_2021_08_13--Vaccination_Program.pdf PDF
DOL Wage Rates--CA202110018.pdf PDF
Responsibility - Contractor Certification Regarding Safety and Environmental.pdf PDF
P1 Factor 1 - Prime Contractor Project Experience.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Show all 20

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

VA Central California Healthcare system Fresno, CA

The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26121R0096 – Design-Build Interventional Imaging Surgical Suite in Building 1 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Fresno, CA. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s).

a. Please complete all sections of the attached questionnaire. Include your name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, and telephone number.

b. Include the contractor’s name, your point of contact (POC,) the title and/or description of the type of work performed the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and the type of award.

c. Use the attached rating scale to rate each performance element.

d. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments.

e. Please e-mail your response, on or before December 3, 2021, to the Contracting Officer, James D. W. Rall, at james.rall@va.gov.

Thank you for your time and participation.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE

RATING:
DEFINITION:
USAGE:
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance exceeded many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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
GOOD
Performance exceeded some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
A GOOD rating is appropriate when the contractor has successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
SATISFACTORY
Performance met all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the elements being assessed were accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
A SATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when there were only a few minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
MARGINAL
Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully successful.
A MARGINAL rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions 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.
Neutral/Not Applicable or Unknown
No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation
Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:

CONTRACTOR MAIN POC

CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACT VALUE:

CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS:
CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE:

Prime Contractor Sub- Contractor Key Personnel

PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

RESPONDENT’S NAME

YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS

PHONE/FAX NO:

E-MAIL:

1. QUALITY:

A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Overall customer satisfaction
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR

A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Government Property Control
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below
RATING
Yes
No

Comments:

6. SAFETY/SECURITY:

A. To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

RATING

E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

7. GENERAL:

A. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or Contracting officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues.)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)

RATING

Yes
No
D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

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