Past Performance Questionnaire Hartford.docx

DOCX document 387 KB Posted

Attached to
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Design-Build Services for a New United States Courthouse in Hartford, CT
Solicitation number
47PB5126R0013
Issued by
Not on record

About this file

This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template developed by PBS (Public Buildings Service) for evaluating contractor performance on federal projects. The form is designed to be completed by clients who have worked with a contractor and submitted to the offeror for inclusion in proposal submissions to PBS solicitations.

The questionnaire captures comprehensive contract and project information including contractor details, work scope, contract type, pricing, and completion status. Clients evaluate contractor performance across seven primary categories using a five-point rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory): Quality (technical data preparation, quality standards compliance, problem resolution, and quality assurance); Schedule/Timeliness (delivery compliance and resource utilization); Customer Satisfaction (end-user satisfaction, contractor cooperation, and responsiveness); Management/Personnel/Labor (on-site management, workforce qualification, property control, and change management); Cost/Financial Management (price compliance, cost innovations, invoice accuracy, and financial stability); Safety/Security (safety compliance and security requirements); and General (emergency response and contractual compliance). The questionnaire also includes sections for sustainability practices and a final determination of whether the client would rehire the contractor. Clients provide narrative comments addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to assist in evaluating performance risk. The form is intended to provide objective past performance data for federal procurement evaluations.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Amendment 2 -GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse Solicitation SF30 42226.pdf PDF
Amendment 1 -GSA Hartford New Federal Courthouse Solicitation SF30 .pdf PDF
Pre-Site Analysis Report I_Michael Maltzan Architecture.pdf PDF
Allyn St. Site Plan, prepared by Close Jensen Miller, April 1991.pdf PDF
DRAFT Hartford SF 1442.pdf PDF
Proprietary Information Agreement - Sample Template .docx DOCX document
Utility Assessment Report prepared by Fuss ONeill August 2024.pdf PDF
Phase II_III Site Investigation prepared by BL April 2019.pdf PDF
Results of Environmental Soil Pre-Characterization Sampling.pdf PDF
260115_Hartford Courthouse Division 1 Specifications Draft.pdf PDF
2025-10-31 HFCH Site Risk Assessment Report - FINAL CIVIL.pdf PDF
GSA Hartford Courthouse Project - Draft Pricing Template - 2025-03-11.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Phase 2 Site Investigation (Draft) prepared by BL dated January 2018.pdf PDF
Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations prepared by GEI Consultants June 2024.pdf PDF
Allyn Street Data Gap Review prepared by Solve March 2024.pdf PDF
Pre-Site Analysis Report II_Michael Maltzan Architecture.pdf PDF
Hartford_POR - Parts 1 2 _DRAFT.pdf PDF
Hartford_POR - Appendix A _DRAFT.pdf PDF
GSA Hartford Courthouse Project Selected Prior RFI QA.pdf PDF
GSA New Federal Courthouse RFI Form.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Hartford Solicitation 47PB5126R0013_DB_2_Phase_Part_I_DECEMBER 2025.pdf PDF
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by BL Companies December 2018.pdf PDF
Environmental Review and Status Report prepared by GeoQuest dated June 2019.pdf PDF
Hartford Federal Courthouse Prelim Geo Rpt (GEI_09-15-25).pdf PDF
HartfordSmallBusinessParticipationCommitmentDocument.docx DOCX document
DRAFT Hartford Agreement_DB_DECEMBER 2025.pdf PDF
Show all 26

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

PBS PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor/Offeror to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR INFORMATION

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:
UEI Number:

Contact Name

Email Address: :
Contact Phone Number:

2. GENERAL WORK INFORMATION

Work performed as: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Sub Contractor ☐ Joint Venture ☐ Other (Please explain):

Percent (%) of project work performed:

If a 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 explain)

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

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:

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Complexity of Work: ☐ High ☐ Med ☐ Routine

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLIENTS COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE: PBS requests that the client completes this questionnaire and submits it directly back to the offeror. The offeror will submit the completed questionnaire to PBS with their proposal, and may duplicate this questionnaire for future submission on PBS solicitations. Clients are highly encouraged to submit questionnaires directly to the offeror. However, questionnaires may be submitted directly to PBS. Please contact the offeror for PBS POC information. The government reserves the right to verify any and all information on this form.

Use the following adjective ratings and definitions in 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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

CLIENT INFORMATION

Client Point of Contact Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Project Information Contract Type:

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Describe your role in the project:

Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

Client’s Signature:

Instructions: Please select the adjective rating that best reflects your evaluation of the contractor’s performance.

1. QUALITY:
E VG S M U N
(a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
E VG S M U N
(a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
E VG S M U N
(a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(d) Overall customer satisfaction.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR
E VG S M U N
(a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR - Continued
E VG S M U N
(c) Government Property Control.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(e) Utilization of Small Business concerns.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
E VG S M U N
(a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, or a CMc/CMc at Risk Contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? (If no, please explain in comment section below.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
(e) 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
(f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? (If yes, please explain in the comment section below.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
6. SAFETY/SECURITY
E VG S M U N
(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.).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. GENERAL
E VG S M U N
(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).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (If there were specific issues, please explain in the comments sections below
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(c) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

8. SUSTAINABILITY

Did this project include sustainable methods, materials, processes or certifications? (See Whole Building Design Guide for acceptable requirements. Link to guide WBDG Green Building Standards and Certification Systems.) (If yes, please explain in the comments section below.)
☐ Yes ☐ No

9. SUMMARY

Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain in the comments section below.)
☐ Yes ☐ No

COMMENTS SECTION

Please provide additional information below, and attach additional pages if necessary.

Please provide responses to the above questions (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Also please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

PBS Past Performance Questionnaire July 2014 image1.png

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