Attachment_D-Past_Perf_Questionnaire_Wenden.pdf

Attachment D

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rail Spur Upgrade at Wenden, Arizona

This questionnaire is designed to provide DLA Strategic Materials with basic information regarding the Contractor’s past performance on previous contracts they have been awarded and the satisfaction with their performance.

Please send this Questionnaire back to Yazmin Mendoza, at yazmin.mendoza@dla.mil. In the subject line name them: Rail Spur Upgrade at Wenden, Arizona, SP8000-18-R-0004.

Please complete the following identifying information and past performance assessment:

A. Contractor name: ____________________________________________________________ B. Contract number: ____________________________________________________________ C. Period of Performance: ________________________________________________________ D. Total Contract Amount (Including any Options): ___________________________________ E. Describe service performed: ______________________________________________ ______

Point of Contact if the Government requires clarification on information filled out in this questionnaire: (name, title, organization, address, email, and phone):

Evaluator’s experience with this manufacturer (evaluator is the person filling out the questionnaire) (Evaluator’s name, title, and organization if different from POC):

mailto:yazmin.mendoza@dla.mil

Past Performance Questionnaire Rail Spur Upgrade Wenden SP8000-18-R-0004

Source Selection Information Page 2 of 4 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Rating Definition Notes

Acceptable

(A)

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element assessed is accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor is highly effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements and work is accepted by the Arizona & California Rail Road Company.

The Contractor must demonstrate positive experience on previously executed work performed on similar contracts. Additionally, the performance must have occurred during the last three (3) years (since 2015 or later). The Contractor has demonstrated the ability and willingness to perform a quality service. If either service quality or delivery time is evaluated as “unacceptable,” the Past Performance shall be considered as “unacceptable.”

Unacceptable

(U)

Performance does not meet contractual requirements and acceptance by the Arizona & California Rail Road Company is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or are ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occur that the contractor has trouble overcoming and which impacts the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Not Applicable

(N/A)

No relevant past performance information available

In the case of a Contractor without a relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance

Source Selection Information Page 3 of 4 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

When answering the questions below, please consider previous experiences with the Contractor and the quality of the products you have received from them.

Please use the rating system on page 2 above when answering questions #3-7 below:

1. Have you performed similar rail work?

Please check a box: ☐ Yes ☐ No Please indicate the location and the name of the rail company that accepted your work.

2. If applicable, please provide the contract name/number and contact information for which the work was performed.

3. Cost—

Rate the Contractor’s ability to control cost and performed the agreed contract requirements.

Describe any reasons for changes to contract value (e.g., scope changes, overrun/underrun, Government-imposed schedule changes, etc.).

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

4. Quality—

a) How well did the Contractor adhere to the scope of work, and/or the environmental concerns?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

b) Did the services provided meet the required level of quality or results?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

5. Performance—

Rate the Contractor's ability to comply successfully with the contract requirements and/or performance work statement.

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

Source Selection Information Page 4 of 4 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

6. Schedule—

a) How well did the Contractor adhere to the agreed-to work schedule?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

b) What were the causes of any schedule variances?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

c) Were data reports and/or materials delivered on time?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

7. What is your overall rating of the Contractor’s performance?

Please circle a rating: A U N/A Please add additional comments below.

8. Given the choice, would you award to this Contractor again? Why/why not?

Please include any additional comments below that will assist in the evaluation of the technical competence and reliability of this material manufacturer.

Name and Date questionnaire was completed: ________________________________________