NASA_MSL_Project_Langley_VA_Project_Owner_Evaluation.pdf

APPENDIX B

OWNER EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTENTION ALL OFFERORS:

The following questionnaire shall be forwarded to the owners of the four projects proposed by your firm under the past performance evaluation factor for this solicitation.

It is recommended that a letter authorizing the reference to provide past performance information to the Government be included with the questionnaire. Following is a sample letter that GSA recommends be sent along with the questionnaire.

Sample Letter:

Dear Client:

We are currently responding to the General Services Administration’s Solicitation Number RJP-

NASA_MSL-0001-8-11-2015 for the procurement of an Offeror to provide all Design, Construction, and Management services for a Measurement Sciences Laboratory (MSL) at the

NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA.

GSA is placing increased emphasis in their procurements on past performance as a source selection factor. GSA is requiring that clients of entities responding to their solicitations be identified and their participation in the evaluation process be requested. In the event you are contacted for information on work we have performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms._______________ of your organization as the point of contact based on their knowledge concerning our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to: ___________________________.

Sincerely, Name

Title

Firm

INSTRUCTION PAGE

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER EVALUATOR

You have been selected by an Offeror to complete the attached questionnaire that concerns an evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance on a project completed or in progress for you.

Please complete the following questionnaire concerning evaluation of the General Construction

Offeror’s past performance. Your response to this evaluation will be utilized by the General

Services Administration (GSA) for selection.

GSA is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. Your complete response is critical, as GSA will rely upon this information, in the selection of a firm for the proposed construction project. Please answer all questions by checking only one (1) response per question.

Your initials are required after each section of the questionnaire and you will be required to sign this evaluation at the end of the questionnaire.

GSA officials may contact you concerning responses made by you in this questionnaire.

If you have any questions and/or concerns, you may contact the GSA Contracting Officer, Raymond J Porter on 215 756 3439.

Instructions for returning this evaluation:

Completed questionnaires will be considered procurement sensitive information and will not be seen or reviewed by the offeror in question or any other party not having a need to know. Electronic copies of the completed questionnaire should be emailed to Raymond J

Porter’s attention at raymondj.porter@gsa.gov.

Hard copies may be mailed to:

The General Services Administration

The Strawbridge Building

20 North 8th Street, 9th Floor – 3PQCV

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3191

Attn: Raymond J Porter mailto:raymondj.porter@gsa.gov

OWNER EVALUATION COVER SHEET

General Offeror being evaluated: ____________________________________

Owner Name (Organization Name, Evaluator Name, Address, Zip, and Telephone Number)

Name, Location, Size (Square Footage) and Description of Project - Use additional sheets if necessary.

Award Amount: Original: $____________________

Final: $____________________

Type of Contract: ______________________________

Percent of Final Contract Amount resulting from owner initiated changes ______

Status of project: ______active _____100% complete

If active, expected completion date __________

Would you award a contract to this firm again for similar work? _____ yes ____no

For each of the questions appearing on the attached sheets, please place an “X” next to the statement that best represents your evaluation in response to the subject questions.

Please note any comments that will add value to your marked response.

OWNER EVALUATION SHEET

A. On time - timeliness of performance

1. Did the Offeror complete the project on schedule?

____Offeror completed project prior to originally scheduled completion date.

____Offeror completed project by original scheduled completion date

____Offeror completed within agreed to extended completion date.

____Offeror failed to meet project completion date.

Comments:

2. To what extent did the Offeror adhere to contract delivery schedules at significant milestones?

____Offeror consistently improved scheduled milestone dates

____Offeror exceeded scheduled milestone requirements

____Offeror typically delivered as scheduled but occasionally missed milestones.

____Offeror rarely met scheduled milestone requirements.

3. How responsive was the Offeror in addressing unforeseen conditions?

____Offeror consistently exercised a pro-active approach.

____Offeror demonstrated some initiative in exercising a pro-active approach.

____Offeror rarely demonstrated a pro-active approach.

____Offeror never demonstrated a pro-active approach.

4. Did the Offeror submit monthly schedule updates?

____Offeror consistently updated the schedule each month

____Offeror updated the schedule if not monthly on a regular basis

____Offeror updated the schedule only when requested

____Offeror did not update schedule when even when requested or required

Initials __________

C. Cost Control

1. Did the Offeror submit reasonably priced change proposals?

____Offeror consistently submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

____Offeror typically submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

____Offeror submitted fair and reasonably priced proposals some of the time.

____Offeror rarely submitted fair and reasonably priced change proposals.

2. How responsive was Offeror in submitting proposals for owner initiated changes?

____Offeror was extremely responsive in expediting proposal submissions.

____Offeror was generally responsive in expediting proposal submissions

____Offeror was generally nonresponsive in timely submissions of change proposals.

____Offeror was nonresponsive in timely submissions of change proposals.

3. How reasonable were Offeror-initiated changes?

____Offeror initiated changes were extremely reasonable.

____Offeror initiated changes were typically reasonable

____Offeror initiated changes were reasonable some of the time.

____Offeror initiated changes were not reasonable

4. How many change orders were issued against the project?

____No change orders were issued.

____Average number of change orders were issued.

____Above average number of change orders were issued.

____Excessive number of change orders were issued.

D. Quality product

1. Did Offeror have and implement a quality control program?

____Offeror has an established, comprehensive program which he uses on every project with individuals employed specifically for quality control.

____Offeror set up a satisfactory quality control program to comply with the requirements for your project.

____Offeror has an established program which he uses on every project

____Offeror’s quality control program was ineffective on your project.

2. How effective was the Offeror’s quality control program?

____Offeror consistently surpassed the quality control program goals.

____Offeror exceeded the quality control program goals.

____Offeror met the minimum quality control program goals.

____Offeror did not meet the minimum quality control program goals.

3. How well has the Offeror complied with contract requirements?

____Offeror consistently surpassed contract requirements

____Offeror exceeded contract requirements.

____Offeror met the minimum contract requirements

____Offeror did not meet the minimum contract requirements.

4. Did they conform to standards of good workmanship?

____Offeror consistently surpassed standards of good workmanship.

____Offeror exceeded standards of good workmanship.

____Offeror met the standards of good workmanship.

____Offeror did not meet standards of good workmanship

5. Does the Offeror have the ability to adapt to changing requirements while maintaining a desired level of quality?

____Offeror was extremely effective in adapting to changing requirements.

____Offeror was considerably effective in adapting to changing requirements.

____Offeror was effective in adapting to changing requirements

____Offeror was ineffective in adapting to changing requirements.

6. Did the Offeror provide a suitable commissioning plan and adhere to the commissioning plan?

____Offeror was extremely effective in adhere to the commissioning plan.

____Offeror was considerably effective in adhere to the commissioning plan.

____Offeror was effective in adhere to the commissioning plan.

____Offeror was ineffective in adhere to the commissioning plan.

E. Business Relations

1. How well did the Offeror work with the owner and the owner’s Technical

Advisors/Representatives?

____ Offeror was extremely cooperative.

____ Offeror was very cooperative.

____ Offeror was generally cooperative.

____ Offeror was not cooperative.

2. How effective was the Offeror’s on site management team?

____ Offeror’s team was extremely effective.

____ Offeror’s team was very effective

____ Offeror’s team was generally effective

____ Offeror’s team was ineffective

3. Is the Offeror cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interest of project related third party entities, i.e. Federal Tenants?

____ Offeror was extremely cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of third party entities.

____Offeror was very cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of third party entities.

____Offeror was generally cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of third party entities

____ Offeror was not cooperative, not businesslike and not concerned with the interests of third party entities.

4. Did the Offeror maintain a good relationship with Architect/Engineer?

____Offeror maintained an excellent relationship with Architect/Engineer.

____Offeror maintained a very good relationship with Architect/Engineer.

____Offeror maintained a good relationship with Architect/Engineer.

____Offeror did not maintain a relationship with Architect/Engineer.

5. Who handled public relations and how effectively were they managed? (Please Comment)

F. Safety History on each Project -

1. Did the Offeror implement an effective accident prevention program?

____Offeror was extremely safety conscious.

____Offeror was generally safety conscious.

____Offeror was occasionally safety conscious

____Offeror was rarely safety conscious

2. Does the firm carry a safety plan adapted to every project?

____Offeror set up a safety plan adapted specifically to every project

____Offeror adapted a generic safety plan to meet project needs.

____Offeror has a generic safety plan which he uses on every project.

____Offeror’s safety plan was ineffective on your project.

G. Continuity of Key Personnel

1. Did the Offeror maintain a consistent project team throughout the duration of the project?

____No adjustments were made: Offeror maintained the same team throughout the duration of the project.

____Minor adjustments to the support team were made during the project.

____Significant changes to the key personnel of the project team were made during the project.( please explain)

____Offeror maintained no consistency in key personnel during the project.

2. Did the Offeror adequately staff the project?

___ Offeror’s staff was extremely effective.

___ Offeror’s staff was very effective.

___ Offeror’s staff was generally effective

___ Offeror’s staff was ineffective

Evaluated By: __________________________

Signature

Name and Title: __________________________

Organization: __________________________