S02- Past Performance Questionnaire 589-22-885 .docx
DOCX document 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C211--589-22-885, TF Expand the Sterile Processing Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C25522R0039
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details for a federal contract opportunity to provide architectural and engineering services for a project to expand sterile processing service space at the Veterans Affairs Kansas City Medical Center. Key requirements include renovating approximately 18,000 square feet of space to meet current safety and design standards for sterile processing, with work such as reconfiguring spaces, upgrading utilities, and replacing HVAC systems. Firms must submit Standard Form 330 by January 7, 2022 to be considered for the fixed price contract award, with a performance period not to exceed 120 days. Evaluation criteria emphasize professional qualifications, specialized experience in healthcare facilities and sterile processing, capacity to complete the work on schedule, and past performance on relevant government and private sector projects.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C25522R0039.docx | DOCX document |
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
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Solicitation 36C25522R0039
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
36C25522R0039, Project #589A-22-885. TF Expand Sterile Processing Service Space to meet requirements
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. |
| “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.
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 |
| 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 .