PPQ - Jackson EHRM.docx
DOCX document 104 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C1DA--586-21-700 EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Design Jackson, MS VAMC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C77621R0152
About this file
This announcement is requesting Standard Form 330 Architect-Engineer Qualifications packages for design services related to infrastructure upgrades at the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi to support implementation of a new Electronic Health Record Modernization system. Key requirements include site investigations and feasibility studies, schematic design, design development, construction documents, specifications and cost estimates for electrical, mechanical, communication, and security infrastructure upgrades across multiple buildings. The period of performance for design services is 144 calendar days from notice of award. Construction period services will be exercised separately as option items.
This is a 100% set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. The NAICS code is 541330 with a size standard of $16.5 million. SF 330s are due by November 18, 2021 and firms will be evaluated based on professional qualifications, specialized experience, capacity, past performance, locality knowledge, and experience with construction period services. Shortlisted firms will submit written responses by a predetermined date. The highest rated firm based on responses will receive negotiations for the design contract award. The anticipated award date is February 25, 2022.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SOW Att 07 - Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 04 - Sensitive Infra Data Classification - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 06 - PG-18-15- Vol C - AE Submission Reqs - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 11 - COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 09 - SitePlan Model - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 08 - VHA Directive 1061 - Legionella - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 03 - HEFP SEP Design Alerts 1-6.pdf | ||
| AE Design SOW - EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades - Jackson - Final.pdf | ||
| 36C77621R0152.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOW Att 10 - XMatrix - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 05 - 01 32 16.01 EHRM AE CPM Schedule Specs - - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 02 - 00 VA OEHRM Site Infra Reqs v2.0 - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf | ||
| SOW Att 01 - VHA Req Div 01 Spec Sections - EHRM Infra Jackson.pdf |
Show all 13
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
VA PROGRAM CONTRACTING ACTIVITY CENTRAL ● 6150 OAK TREE BLVD SUITE 300 ● INDEPENDENCE, OH 44131
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)
*All PPQs are included in the 50-page limit for SF 330 submissions.
SECTION 1
CONTRACT INFORMATION – Contractor to complete #1-3
1. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME OF OFFEROR BEING EVALUATED: Click or tap here to enter text.
ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
POINT OF CONTACT: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
WORK PERFOMED AS: Click or tap here to enter text.
PERCENT OF PROJECT WORK PERFORMED: Click or tap here to enter text.
IF SUBCONTRACTOR, WHO WAS THE PRIME? Click or tap here to enter text.
2. CONTRACT INFORMATION
CONTRACT TITLE: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT NUMBER AND DO/TO NUMBER: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT TYPE: Choose an item.
if other:
CONTRACT LOCATION: Click or tap here to enter text.
AWARD DATE: Click or tap to enter a date.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT ACCCEPTANCE (construction accepted) Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
ACTUAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE: Click or tap to enter a date.
EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES: Click or tap here to enter text.
ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION PRICE: Click or tap here to enter text.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE (all costs - design/installation/financing): Click or tap here to enter text.
FINAL CONTRACT PRICE (including modifications, if applicable): Click or tap here to enter text.
EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES: Click or tap here to enter text.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPE INCLUDED IN PROJECT: Click or tap here to enter text.
HOW IS THIS PROJECT RELEVANT TO PROJECT OF SUBMISSION? Click or tap here to enter text.
SECTION 2
EVALUATOR INFORMATION – Client to complete
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Program Contracting Activity Central (PCAC) is considering the Offeror identified above for award of the EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Design project at the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi.
Your comments would be appreciated regarding this firm’s past performance. The intent of this form is to evaluate the company’s ability to perform the work as described in the solicitation. Please verify the accuracy of the information in Section 1 and complete the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. VHA-PCAC may contact you in order to obtain any additional information regarding a contract award.
Please return your completed questionnaire to the Offeror to be incorporated into their SF 330 submission. PPQs should not be submitted directly to VHA PCAC by the client. Refer to the solicitation for SF 330 submission due date.
EVALUATOR INFORMATION
NAME OF EVALUATOR: Click or tap here to enter text.
POSITION: Click or tap here to enter text.
ADDRESS: Click or tap here to enter text.
PHONE: Click or tap here to enter text.
EMAIL: Click or tap here to enter text.
DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN THE PROJECT: Click or tap here to enter text.
*Please see Page 4 for Adjectival Ratings for the following:
1. QUALITY
| Ability to meet quality design and/or construction standards specified for technical performance |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
2. SCHEDULE/ TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
| Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including timely submission of data deliverables (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below.) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
3. COMMUNICATION
| Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with client staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes and responsiveness to client requests) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/ LABOR
| Effectiveness of management, including suppliers, materials, and/or labor force (including the ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the project) |
| Choose an item. |
| Continuity in the contractor’s personnel during execution of the contract (e.g., one person or team that stayed with the project throughout the contract) |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
5. COST/ FINANCIAL MANGEMENT
| Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price |
| Choose an item. |
| Comments: |
6. SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Ability to manage subcontracting effort, including any subcontracting issues, and the contractor’s ability to resolve the problems without extensive customer guidance
Choose an item.
Comments:
7. SUMMARY
| Would you hire or work with this firm again? If no, please explain below. |
| Choose an item. |
| Provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| Choose an item. |
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
| EVALUATOR SIGNATURE: |
| DATE: |
ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE
*THIS PAGE WILL BE REMOVED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES AND NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SF 330 PAGE COUNT – IT IS FOR PPQ COMPLETION PURPOSES ONLY*
| Rating |
| Definition |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 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. |
| Not Applicable |
| No information or did not apply to your contract. |
image1.tiff
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .