13. Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionaire.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Joint Base Lewis-McChord PAVEMENT IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- W911S8-17-R-0001
About this file
Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 74 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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 5 W911S8-17-R-0001 8/27/2016 Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire Solicitation W911S8-17-R-0001 Paving Indefinite Delivery Contract Joint Base Lewis-McChord
WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104
The Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC)-Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) is in the process of selecting a contractor for a paving indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ). The contract requires the contractor to provide all materials, labor, supervision, equipment, tools, transportation, and ancillary items necessary to manage and accomplish a broad range of maintenance, repair and minor construction work on vehicle roadways and airfield paving projects at JBLM including removal, replacement and repair of existing subgrade, utilities, shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other real property common to roadway and airfield pavements.
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. MICC-JBLM depends 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.
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.
SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION
1. CONTRACTOR:
1. CAGE CODE:
1. CONTRACT NUMBER:
1. CONTRACT TYPE:
| 1. WAS THIS A COMPETITIVE CONTRACT? |
| YES NO |
| 1. CONTRACTOR PERFORMED AS THE |
| |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub-Contractor |_| Key Personnel. |
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:
SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION
A. CUSTOMER OR AGENCY NAME:
B. CUSTOMER OR AGENCY DESCRIPTION:
C. GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES UNDER THIS CONTRACT, I.E. LOCAL, NATIONWIDE, WORLDWIDE, OTHER COMMANDS:
SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION
A. EVALUATOR'S NAME:
B. EVALUATOR'S TITLE:
C. EVALUATOR'S PHONE/FAX NUMBER:
D. NUMBER OF YEARS EVALUATOR WORKED ON SUBJECT CONTRACT:
SECTION 4: EVALUATION
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:
CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL
S SATISFACTORY – THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE MEETS CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE CONTAINED SOME MINOR PROBLEMS FOR WHICH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR APPEAR OR WERE SATISFACTORY.
M MARGINAL – PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MEET SOME CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE 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 IMPLEMENTED.
U UNSATISFACTORY – PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MEET MOST CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOVERY IS NOT LIKELY IN A TIMELY MANNER. THE CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE CONTAINS SERIOUS PROBLEM(S) FOR WHICH THE CONTRACTOR’S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS APPEAR OR WERE INEFFECTIVE.
NA NOT APPLICABLE - UNABLE TO PROVIDE A SCORE.
| S |
| M |
| U |
| NA |
DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT.
DEMONSTRATED FLEXIBILITY AND COOPERATIVENESS WITH PHASING WORK TO MEET USER NEEDS AND COORDINATION WITH ALL PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS.
PROVIDED EXPERIENCED MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS WITH THE TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITIES NEEDED TO MEET CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO HIRE, MAINTAIN, AND REPLACE, IF NECESSARY, QUALIFIED PERSONNEL DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD.
DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO PROJECT MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS COMMENSURATE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
HOME OFFICE PARTICIPATED IN SOLVING SIGNIFICANT LOCAL PROBLEMS.
FOLLOWED APPROVED QUALITY CONTROL PLAN.
PROVIDED EFFECTIVE QUALITY CONTROL AND/OR INSPECTION PROCEDURES TO MEET CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
CORRECTED DEFICIENCIES IN TIMELY MANNER AND PURSUANT TO THEIR QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES.
PROVIDED TIMELY RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT DISCREPANCIES.
IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AS THEY OCCURRED.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS.
DISPLAYED INITIATIVE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.
DEVELOPED REALISTIC PROGRESS SCHEDULES.
MET ESTABLISHED PROJECT SCHEDULES.
PROVIDED TIMELY RESOLUTION OF WARRANTY DEFECTS.
WAS RESPONSIVE TO CONTRACT CHANGES.
PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROJECT SUPERVISION.
OBTAINED CONSENT OF SURETY FOR INCREASES IN BONDING AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS INCREASED.
PAID SUBCONTRACTORS/SUPPLIERS IN A TIMELY MANNER.
PROVIDED ACCURATE AND COMPLETE LINE ITEM COST PROPOSALS INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS OF WORK REQUIRED FOR EACH TASK.
COOPERATED WITH GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AFTER AWARD.
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONTRACTOR'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE?
| WAS THE CONTRACTOR EVER ISSUED A CURE OR SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER THE REFERENCED CONTRACT? IF YES, EXPLAIN OUTCOME IN “REMARKS.” |
| YES |
| NO |
| WOULD YOU AWARD ANOTHER CONTRACT TO THIS CONTRACTOR? IF NOT, EXPLAIN IN “REMARKS.” |
| YES |
| NO |
| IS THE CONTRACTOR RATED IN CPARS? |
| YES |
| NO |
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).
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ONLY: HAS/WAS THIS CONTRACT BEEN PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT OR CONVENIENCE OR ARE THERE ANY PENDING TERMINATIONS?
| YES____ | NO ____ | |
| DEFAULT____ | CONVENIENCE____ | PENDING TERMINATIONS____ |
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN (E.G., INABILITY TO MEET COST, PERFORMANCE, OR DELIVERY SCHEDULES, ETC).
WOULD YOU HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS ABOUT SOLICITING THIS CONTRACTOR IN THE FUTURE OR HAVING THE CONTRACTOR M PERFORM ONE OF YOUR CRITICAL AND DEMANDING PROGRAMS?
| EVALUATOR’S SIGNATURE: |
| DATE: |
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY AND RETURN DIRECTLY TO CONTRACT SPECIALIST, IANTHE STEVENS-FORD, VIA EMAIL TO USARMY.JBLM.ACCMICC.LIST.PROPOSALS@MAIL.MIL AND IANTHE.M.STEVENS-FORD.CIV@MAIL.MIL, BY TO BE DETERMINED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE AND ASSISTANCE!
| CONTRACTOR’S NAME: |
| CONTRACT NUMBER: |
Remarks:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .