Past Performance Questionnaire 36C25522R0002 (Project 657-20-102JB).pdf

PDF 152 KB Posted

Attached to
Z2DA--657-20-102JB – FCA – Renovate Second Floor Center, Building 52”.
Solicitation number
36C25522R0002
Issued by

About this file

This document contains a past performance questionnaire and information on a related federal contract opportunity for renovations at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. The past performance questionnaire seeks evaluations of a contractor's performance on a prior, unnamed project and includes ratings across various performance metrics. The federal contract opportunity is a pre-solicitation notice for Project 657-20-102JB to renovate approximately 7,200 square feet on the second floor of Building 52 at the Jefferson Barracks Division of the VA Saint Louis Health Care System. The renovation project is set aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and has an estimated cost between $2-5 million. The solicitation will be posted on October 15, 2021 to the SAM website and has a projected completion date of 410 calendar days after notice to proceed.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Scan_2021_11_02_14_28_13_296.pdf PDF
36C25522R0002 0001.docx DOCX document
36C25522R0002_1.docx DOCX document
3 Abate BD.pdf PDF
P09_S02 -20-028 Specifications 657-20-102JB (1448 pages) final.pdf PDF
2 Struct BD.pdf PDF
9 Elec BD.pdf PDF
7 Plumb BD.pdf PDF
4 Arch BD.pdf PDF
5 IntD BD.pdf PDF
8 Mech BD.pdf PDF
1 Gen BD.pdf PDF
6 FP BD.pdf PDF
Show all 13

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

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Solicitation 36C25522R0002

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

36C25522R0002, PROJECT #657-20-102JB, Renovate Second Floor Center, Building 52

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Point of Contact:

Contact Phone Number:

DUNs Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

Rating: Please evaluate the past performance using only the following ratings without variation. DO NOT RATE ON A “+” OR “- “SCALE. If a “+” or “- “is used, the rating without the "+" or "-" will be applied. In addition to the ratings, please provide a short narrative in the appropriate block or in the remarks section of this form.

“O” Outstanding The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were highly effective.

“A” Above Average The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some requirements to the Client’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were effective.

Please rate and provide any supporting information/comments for the following:

1. The quality of the working relationship with the client (the tenant and/ or owner).

O A S M U

2. The professionalism and integrity with which offeror conducted business. O A S M U

3. The responsiveness to the client’s needs and expectations.

O A S M U

4. The Offeror’s ability to successfully management and perform the project. O A S M U

5. The offeror’s level of communication. O A S M U

6. The quality control of the project. O A S M U

“S” Satisfactory The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were satisfactory.

“M” Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements.

Performance indicated that there are some potential risks associated with the quality products, timeliness of service, and contract performance.

“U” Unacceptable Performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the offeror has yet to identify corrective actions or the offeror’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

NOTE: Any rating of Outstanding or Unacceptable must include sufficient details to support the rating.

7. Any Value added to the project as the result of cost savings, favorable financing, positive asset management, etc.

Yes No

8. Would you award another contact to the party being evaluated? If no, please explain.

Yes No

9. The delivery of the project within the budget and on schedule. O A S M U

10. Other relevant aspects in the management of a project development for the client.

11. Overall rating for this firm: O A S M U

Signature of Evaluator

Date

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