Vendor Name_Past Performance Questionnaire.docx

25 KB Posted

Attached to
Northern Research Station, Methods Testing Plant (MTP) Mowing Option Contract
Solicitation number
12444824Q0007
Issued by

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This past performance questionnaire and federal contract opportunity solicitation provide details for a mowing services contract. The Department of Agriculture Forest Service is seeking quotes to provide landscape maintenance services including twice yearly clean-up at the Methods Testing Plant in Princeton, West Virginia for a base year plus four option years. The solicitation is set aside for small businesses with a NAICS code of 561730 and size standard of $9.5 million. Quotes are due no later than February 05, 2023 and should be emailed to the point of contact. The past performance questionnaire requests ratings and commentary to assess a contractor's performance on a prior contract to help evaluate offers. Site visits for the contract are scheduled on January 24, 2024 at the Methods Testing Plant location.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Sol_12444824Q0007.pdf PDF
MTP grounds map.docx DOCX document
Vendor Name_SCHEDULE OF ITEMS.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Service Contract Act WD 2015-4351.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

12444824Q0007 Methods Testing Plant (MTP) Mowing Services

PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

When Filled In This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104

A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Please correct any information below known to be inaccurate:

Contractor’s Name: _____________________ Telephone Number: ______________________

Address: ________________________________________

Project Title or Brief Description of Work: _____________________________________________

Contract Number Provided by Offeror: __________________Dollar Amount: $ ________________

Contract Period or Dates of Performance Provided by Offeror: ___________________________

Contractor performed as the Prime Contractor Sub-Contractor Key Personnel.

B. RESPONDENT INFORMATION:

Name of Respondent: ___________________Title: _________________________________________

Telephone Number: _______________________________

Email Address: _______________________________

C. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the number on the scale of 1 to 5 that most accurately describes the contractor’s performance or situation. Alternatively, select N/A where appropriate.

PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ANY RATINGS OF 1 OR 2.

1
2
3
4
5
N/A
UNSATISFACTORY
MARGINAL
SATISFACTORY
VERY GOOD
EXCEPTIONAL
NEUTRAL or N/A
Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
Performance did not meet some contractual requirements.

There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.

Performance met contractual requirements.

There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the government’s benefit. There were a few minor problems, which the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner.
Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the government’s benefit.

Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner.

No record of past performance, the record is inconclusive, or rated area is not applicable.

1.
Provided experienced managers and supervisors with the technical and administrative abilities needed to meet contract requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
2.
Home office participated in solving significant local problems.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
3.
Provided effective quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
4.
Corrected deficiencies in timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
5.
Identified problems as they occurred.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
6.
Suggested alternative approaches to problems.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
7.
Displayed initiative to solve problems.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
8.
Cooperated with Government personnel after award.
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
9.
How would you rate the contractor's overall performance?
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
10.
Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in “remarks.”
YES/NO
11.
Is the contractor rated in CPARS?
YES/NO
12.
Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in “remarks.”
YES/NO

CONTRACTOR’S NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER

Remarks: ________________________________________________________________________________

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .