Attachment_3_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Job Order Contract - Fort Irwin, CA
- Solicitation number
- W91151-17-R-0063
About this file
This document contains a past performance questionnaire and details of a federal solicitation for a job order contract. The questionnaire is to be completed by references for offerors bidding on a single award IDIQ job order contract valued between $50-75 million to provide real property sustainment, restoration and modernization minor construction services to the United States Army Directorate of Public Works at Fort Irwin, California. The contract will have a one year base period and four one-year options. Task orders will range from $2,000 to $1 million. The NAICS code is 236220 and the size standard is $36.5 million. Competition is limited to qualified 8(a) firms with offices in the Santa Ana SBA region. The solicitation is expected to be released on June 15, 2017 with proposals due July 20, 2017. It will be available on FBO and no paper copies will be distributed.
Solicitation W91151-17-R-0063 Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENT 3
Questionnaire Cover Letter Solicitation: W91151-17-R-0063
ATTACHMENT 3
Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation: W91151-17-R-0063
LETTERHEAD
(Date)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The United States Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command – 418th Contracting Support Brigade (CSB) located at Fort Hood, Texas is in the process of selecting a contractor for a single award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Job Order Contract (JOC) at the U.S. Army Fort Irwin, California.
One of the considerations in proposal evaluation is the verification of the offerors' past and present performance on contracts, which reflect the offeror's ability to perform on the proposed effort. We depend on information received from agencies such as yours, which have had firsthand experience with an offeror, for the evaluation of the offeror's performance on those contracts.
Our areas of interest in the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. Our schedule is extremely tight and we need your written response no later than (NLT) 31 July 2017. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data prior to the start of negotiations.
To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, the questionnaire may be filled out electronically or by hand and emailed to usarmy.hood.acc-micc.list.418th-csb-joc@mail.mil. The subject line shall include the solicitation number. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official Source Selection records.
Your help is greatly appreciated and your prompt response will be one of the keys to the successful and timely completion of this Source Selection.
WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104
SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
1. Contractor: ________________________________________________________________
1. Cage Code: _________________________________
1. Contract number: _______________________________________
1. Award Date: ________________________
1. Contract type: ______________________________
1. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____
1. Period of performance: ______________________________________________________
1. Initial contract cost: $____________________________
1. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________
1. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:
1. Description of service provided:
1. Relevancy Description:
SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION
1. Customer or agency name: ____________________________________________________
1. Customer or agency description (if applicable): ___________________________________
1. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:
SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION
1. Evaluator's name: ___________________________________________________________
1. Evaluator's title: ____________________________________________________________
1. Evaluator's phone/fax number: _________________________________________________
1. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________________
SECTION 4: EVALUATION
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional (E) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective. |
| An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the customer. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes and Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Very Good (VG) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective. |
| A Very Good rating is appropriate when the contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the customer. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory (S) |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. |
| A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that the contractor will not be assessed lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract. |
| Marginal (M) |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the customer. |
| Unsatisfactory (U) |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
| An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the customer. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes and unsatisfactory rating. |
| Not Applicable (NA) |
| No information or did not apply to the contract. |
| Rating will be neither be positive nor negative. |
Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:
| Technical Performance |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| US |
| NA |
1. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts.
2. Ability to meet quality standard specified for technical performance.
3. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance.
4. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance).
5. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or KO in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).
6. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain below if specific issues).
7. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, address below.)
8. Contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract.
9. The extent the contractor was able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues. (Includes following the user’s rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)
10. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.
11. Utilized quality control process that ensured conformance to scope and quality requirements.
12. Quality control personnel responsive to and cooperative with agency personnel regarding quality issues.
13. Responsiveness to warranty issues.
| Program Management |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| US |
| NA |
14. Effectiveness of overall contract management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the program).
15. Provided a dedicated and qualified management team.
16. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force and coordinated to meet scope and schedule across multiple orders.
17. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel.
18. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines.
19. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution, and response to Government changes.
20. Ability to meet terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s).
21. Effectiveness of material management (including Government Furnished Property)
22. Subcontractors/tradesmen/suppliers received timely payment.
23. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability, or other factors that benefitted the customer.
24. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation.
25. The adequacy of the contractor’s accounting system for management and tracking of costs.
| Customer Satisfaction |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| US |
| NA |
26. End user satisfaction with the project.
27. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with the customer staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes, responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike, and communication).
| Overall |
| E |
| VG |
| S |
| M |
| US |
| NA |
Provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.
1. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated M (Marginal) or US (Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).
2. Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued.
| Yes____ | Default____ | Convenience____ | Pending Terminations____ |
| No ____ |
If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc.).
SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?
Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.
Evaluator’s Signature Date
Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
E-mail to: usarmy.hood.acc-micc.list.418th-csb-joc@mail.mil
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .