Past_Performance___Experience_Questionnaire.pdf

PDF 1 MB Posted

Attached to
WASO_HAVO_OHIA WING EX D/B Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
140P2122R0030
Issued by
Department of the Interior National Park Service

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire and supplemental comment form for the solicitation number 140P2122R0030. The National Park Service requires exhibit planning and design services for the Ohi'a Wing Museum within Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Offerors must submit completed past performance questionnaires from references as part of their proposals, though the government may also contact references. The questionnaire includes sections to rate offerors on technical performance, timeliness, quality and customer satisfaction, cost control, and an overall recommendation. The supplemental form allows additional comments on the performance element ratings.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to WASO_HAVO_OHIA WING EX D/B, newest first.
File Type Posted
Attachment27_Memo_from_SPE_regarding_notifying_contractors_about_COVID_vaccination_certification_0001.pdf PDF
Sol_140P2122R0030_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
Attachment29_Certification_of_Vaccination_Form_expires_2-28-25_0001.pdf PDF
Attachment28_Vaccination_Certification_Notification_Template_0001.pdf PDF
Attachment23_HAVO_Graphic_Layouts_List.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment18_HAVO_Invasive_Pest_Prevention_SOP.pdf PDF
Attachment17_HAVO_Foundation_Document.pdf PDF
Attachment10_Museum_Exhibit_Planner_template.pdf PDF
Attachment9_Sample_Use_Rights_Letter.pdf PDF
Attachment4_Architectural_Barriers_Act_(ABA)_Standards.pdf PDF
Attachment22_HAVO_PDII_Content_Reports_Part1.pdf PDF
Attachment19_HAVO_Photos_of_Ohia_Wing_Museum.pdf PDF
Attachment6_National_Park_Service_Standard_Specifications_for_Planning_Design_Production_and_Installation_of_Electronic_Programs.pdf PDF
Attachment5_Programmatic_Accessibility_Guidelines_for_National_Park_Service_Interpretive_Media.pdf PDF
Attachment7_Content_Management_Data_Fields_Guidelines.pdf PDF
Attachment21_HAVO_PDII_Graphic_Layouts_Package.pdf PDF
Attachment24_HAVO_Photos_of_Material_Board.pdf PDF
Attachment20_HAVO_PDII_Exhibit_Design_Drawings_Package.pdf PDF
Attachment25_Blank_Cost_Estimate_Form.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment15_Descriptive_Exhibit_Tour_Installation_and_Equipment_Guide.pdf PDF
Attachment14_AV_Completion_Report.pdf PDF
Attachment13_Art_Documentation_Form.pdf PDF
Attachment8_Intellectual_Property_Guidelines_for_Harpers_Ferry_Center_Interpretive_Media.pdf PDF
Attachment3_Exhibit_Conservation_Guidelines.pdf PDF
Sol_140P2122R0030.pdf PDF
Attachment11_Component_Inventory_Schedule_Form.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment12_Component_Inventory_Sample.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment22_HAVO_PDII_Content_Reports_Part2.pdf PDF
Attachment16_HAVO_Editorial_Style_Guide.pdf PDF
Attachment2_HFC_Editorial_Style_Guide.pdf PDF
Attachment1_Exhibit_Planning_Design_and_Fabrication_Specifications.pdf PDF
Show all 31

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

Solicitation 140P2122R0030 – Attachment

Past Performance Questionnaire

The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for the Exhibit Planning and Design for the Ohi'a Wing Museum within Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.

Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.

The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.

Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

Performance Rating Form

NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED

ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED

CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT TYPE

CONTRACTING OFFICER/CUSTOMER NAME,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS

TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)

NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY,

ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND

EMAIL ADDRESS

DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED/

SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR

Performance Element Outstanding Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Other

Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)

1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)

2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)

Timeliness of Performance

3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES

(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)

4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)

Quality / Customer Satisfaction

5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)

6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR

(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)

7. COMMUNICATION

(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)

Cost Control

8. COST CONTROL

(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)

FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate YES NO

9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?

Additional Comment Form

Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.

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