The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SOURCE SELCTION INFORMATION WHEN COMPLETED (SEE FAR 3.104)
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
This information is being provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mount Rainier National Park, for use in selecting a contractor to perform the work required by Solicitation No. P17PS01509 for White River & Ohanapecosh Campground Asphalt Overlay. Completed forms shall be submitted to Mount Rainier National Park: e-mail to pam_griffin@nps.gov This information must be submitted no later than the date for receipt of proposals – July 17, 2017. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure each questionnaire is submitted timely.
Contract Information
Name and Address of Firm Being Evaluated:
Contract No.:
| Type of Contract: |
| Firm-Fixed |
Project Title:
Project Location:
Initial Amount:
Final Amount:
Award Date:
Completion Date:
Description of work performed:
Evaluator Information
Name of Evaluator:
Company/Agency Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Position Held or Function in Relation to Project:
Past Performance Rating
Rating: If the rating is “Acceptable” or “Poor”, please provide additional information in the appropriate block or in the remarks section of the form.
| “O” |
| Outstanding |
| Performance greatly exceeded the contract requirements. |
| “E” |
| Excellent |
| Performance exceeded the contract requirements. |
| “G” |
| Good |
| Performance met the contract requirements. |
| “A” |
| Acceptable |
| Performance met the minimum contract requirements but some material aspects of the contractor’s performance were less than satisfactory. |
| “P” |
| Poor |
| Performance was poor and/or did not satisfy contract requirements. |
| N/A |
| Not applicable |
| Insert N/A if a questions is not applicable to the project. |
Please circle the appropriate rating and provide any supporting information/comments for the following:
| 1. |
| Firm and Client’s/Customer’s Contract Team Relationship: |
| O E G A P |
| 2. |
| Management and Coordination of Subcontractors: |
| O E G A P |
| 3. |
| Overall Corporate Management, Integrity, Reasonableness and Cooperative Conduct: |
| O E G A P |
| 4. |
| Timeliness and Quality of Submittals: |
| O E G A P |
| 5. |
| Responsiveness to Customer/Client’s Requirements: |
| O E G A P |
| 6. |
| Quality of work: |
| O E G A P |
| 7. |
| Quality Control: |
| O E G A P |
| 8. |
| Ability to meet the Performance Schedule: |
| O E G A P |
| 9. |
| Ability/Actions to Improve Schedule Problems: |
| O E G A P |
| 10. |
| Ability to Control Costs and Provide the Required Work at a Reasonable Total Price: |
| O E G A P |
| 11. |
| Ability of contractor to maintain key personnel through the entire project performance period: |
| O E G A P |
| 12. |
| Quality of Contract Administration: |
| O E G A P |
| 13. |
| Compliance with Labor Standards: |
| O E G A P |
| 14. |
| Change Order Management: |
| O E G A P |
| 15. |
| Overall Contract Compliance: |
| O E G A P |
| 16. |
| Compliance with safety standards and/or number of safety related incidents, code, compliance, as applicable: |
| O E G A P |
| 17. |
| Construction Project Management: |
| O E G A P |
| 18. |
| Have any cure notices, show cause letters, letter of reprimand, suspension of payment, or termination been issued? If yes, please explain: |
| Yes No |
| 19. |
| Would you award another contract to the firm being evaluated? |
| Yes No |
| 20. |
| Was the customer satisfied with the end product? If no, please explain: |
| Yes No |
| 21. |
| Has the firm being evaluated been provided an opportunity to discuss or respond to any negative comments or performance ratings? If so, what were the results? |
| Yes No |
| 23. |
| Overall rating for this firm: |
| O E G A P |