Attachment 0001_ Past Performance Questionnaire_ Amendment 01.docx
DOCX document 81 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Exhibit Design Services for the National Mounted Warrior Museum Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV-21-R-L032
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire for a design firm and details of a solicitation for exhibit design services for the National Mounted Warrior Museum. The past performance questionnaire requests a respondent's assessment of a contractor's performance on a previous relevant contract. It includes questions on environmental dioramas, design appropriateness for space and budget, communication effectiveness, and infrastructure compatibility. The solicitation is for the U.S. Army to procure exhibit design services for a new museum at Fort Hood, Texas. The 100% small business set-aside contract would have an 11-month period of performance using FFP pricing. The Army Contracting Command - Detroit Arsenal intends to issue the RFP within 30 days, with proposals due 30 calendar days after RFP issuance. The solicitation and amendments will be posted to betaSAM, and contact with government personnel outside ACC-DTA is prohibited prior to award.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Request for Information_Exihibit Design Services_Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exihibit Design Services PWS_Final.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
Attachment 0002: Past Performance Questionnaire
W56HZV-21-R-L032
Attachment 0001 Past Performance QUESTIONNAIRE
Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire Please provide your candid response to the following questions. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore it is important that your information be as factual and accurate as possible. If you do not have the appropriate knowledge with the company in question, please forward this questionnaire to the person who does. Upon completion of this questionnaire, please forward by electronic email to Elida Kellezi at elida.kellezi.civ@mail.mil by 17 May 2021. Thank you for your assistance.
PART I - IDENTIFICATION (To be completed by the Offeror)
A. RELEVANT CONTRACT
Contractor/Company Name/Division:
Address:
Program Identification/Title:
Contract/Task Order Number:
Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):
Contract Award Date:
Contract Period of Performance End Date:
Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion:
Place of Performance:
Brief Description of the Relevant Contract Scope:
B. OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number:
FAX Number:
Address:
E-mail Address:
PART II - EVALUATION (To be completed by Respondent’s Point of Contact)
RATING SCALE & DEFINITIONS
Table 1 identifies the rating scale and descriptions. Please apply the rating that most closely matches your assessment for each area of consideration listed below. Please include a written narrative for each rating applied, utilizing the adjectival rating definition in Table 1 on the following page.
Table 1
A. Past Performance:
Assess the contractor’s ability to:
1. Were there full-scale environmental settings (dioramas), and if so, were you pleased with the results?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
Comments:
For any adverse issues, give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Assess the contractor’s ability to:
2. Was the design firm’s product appropriate to the size of the exhibit space, and to the projected fabrication/installation budget?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
Comments:
For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Assess the contractor’s ability to:
3. How effective were communications with the design firm about options (such as fonts, colors), response time to your questions, and you proposing design alterations?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
Comments:
For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Assess the contractor’s ability to:
4. Did the design require alterations to the existing building (such as demolition, construction of new walls, or alterations to the electrical system), and if so, did they ensure that their specifications were compatible with your infrastructure?
5. Did the design require alterations to the existing building (such as demolition, construction of new walls, or alterations to the electrical system), and if so, did they ensure that their specifications were compatible with your infrastructure?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
B. Project Schedule:
Assess the timeliness of contractor performance for Services and Product Deliverables:
To what extent did the contractor adhere to the delivery schedules, on an overall basis?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
C. Management / Business Relations:
Assess the contractor’s ability to effectively manage the Program (to include subcontractors).
To what extent was the contractor effective in managing the Program, on an overall basis?
|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_| Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory |_| Too soon to tell |_| Not Applicable
Comments:
For any adverse issues give your assessment of the extent to which the contractor was at fault (e.g. mostly attributable to contractor, evenly attributable to contractor and customer/end user, only somewhat attributable to contractor) and your assessment of the extent to which customer/end user was at fault (e.g. changes to the specification requirements, unrealistic or ambiguous specification requirements, etc.) or other factors beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
D. General Comments:
Any additional information, which your organization deems relevant or important, is welcome by our evaluation team. Please provide any other relevant or important performance information.
PART III - RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION
Please provide a point of contact who compiled or completed this questionnaire and who, if needed, may be contacted by our evaluation team regarding the information provided in this questionnaire.
Organization:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Telephone Number:
Address:
E-mail Address:
Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .