S02 - Past Performance Questionnaire Elevators.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 3960--654-22-1-6059-0005 Replace Elevators Building 1. Please Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C26122R0018
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for contractors bidding on a solicitation to modernize elevators at a Veterans Affairs medical center in Reno, Nevada. The solicitation number is 36C26122R0018 and involves replacing elevators in Building 1 of the VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System. Responses to the past performance questionnaire are due by February 2nd, 2022 and should be emailed to the point of contact, Charee Harris, to be considered as part of the proposal evaluation. The questionnaire asks for ratings and comments on quality, schedule, customer satisfaction, management, cost and safety factors relating to the contractor's past and current work. It will be used to assess performance risks for contractors competing for this elevator modernization project at the VA medical center in Reno, Nevada.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PG 18-10 - Elevator Design Manual.pdf | ||
| 01.57.19 Temporary Environmental Controls.doc | DOC document | |
| Appendix 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.32.16-16 Network Analysis Schedules.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C26122R0018.docx | DOCX document | |
| Checklist QC Plan Review.pdf | ||
| Wage Determination NV20210040 12.03.21.pdf | ||
| CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION REGARDING SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| S02 - RFI FORM.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.00.00 General Requirments.pdf | ||
| Key Personnel Attachment for Evaluation 02.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.42.19 Reference Standards.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.33.23.submittals.docx | DOCX document | |
| B1 1945 D1-26 Arch Grd Flr Plan.pdf | ||
| S02 Price Breakdown by Division.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.45.00 Quality Control.docx | DOCX document | |
| 01.35.26 Safety Requirements.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 17
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
36C26122R0018 Modernize Elevators Reno, Nevada
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System Reno, NV
The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26122R0018, Replace/Modernize Elevators Building1, VASNHCS, Reno, Nevada. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s).
a. Please complete all sections of the attached questionnaire. Include your name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, telephone and fax number.
b. Include the contractor’s name, your point of contact (POC,) the title and/or description of the type of work performed the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and the type of award.
c. Use the attached rating scale rate each performance element.
d. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments. Clear handwritten responses are sufficient.
e. Due to time constraints, it is important that the questionnaire be completed and returned by the date proposal is due (February 2, 2022 at 10:00 am PST). Please e-mail your response with the RFP/RFQ numbers as the subject line and send to the following address:
| VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System | Telephone: (775) 788-5511 | |
| Attn: Charee Harris | E-mail: charee.harris@va.gov |
975 Kirman Avenue Reno, NV 89502
Thank you for your time and participation.
PAST PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE
| RATING: |
| DEFINITION: |
| USAGE: |
| EXCEPTIONAL |
| Performance exceeded many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 |
| GOOD |
| Performance exceeded some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| A GOOD rating is appropriate when the contractor has successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| SATISFACTORY |
| Performance met all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the elements being assessed were accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| A SATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when there were only a few minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| MARGINAL |
| Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully successful. |
| A MARGINAL rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner. |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions 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. |
| Neutral/Not Applicable or Unknown |
| No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation |
| Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported. |
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:
CONTRACTOR MAIN POC
CONTRACT NUMBER:
CONTRACT VALUE:
| CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS: |
| CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE: |
Prime Contractor Sub- Contractor Key Personnel
PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
RESPONDENT’S NAME
YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS
PHONE/FAX NO:
E-MAIL:
1. QUALITY:
| A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
| A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:
| A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Overall customer satisfaction |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR
| A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force? |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. Government Property Control |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
| A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)? |
| RATING |
| E |
| E |
| E |
| E |
| E |
| E |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
| B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below |
| RATING |
| Yes |
| No |
Comments:
6. SAFETY/SECURITY:
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.)
RATING
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
7. GENERAL:
| 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.) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
| B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)
RATING
| Yes |
| No |
| D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. |
| RATING |
| E |
| G |
| S |
| M |
| U |
| N |
Comments:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .