Attachment 4- Telephone Interview Questionnaire Form.pdf

PDF 146 KB Posted

Attached to
National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) Secure Operations and Admin Facility, Rivanna Station Virginia
Solicitation number
W9123620R0007
Issued by

About this file

This document provides details for a federal contract opportunity to construct a secure operations and administration facility addition and parking structure for the National Ground Intelligence Center in Rivanna Station, Virginia. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District intends to issue a request for proposal for the acquisition with an estimated value between $25-100 million. The contract type will be firm-fixed-price for approximately thirty-nine contract line items. The scope of work involves constructing an 80,800 square foot addition with critical laboratory spaces on the first two levels and workstations/meeting areas on the third. Supporting facilities such as utilities, drainage, and a 250-space parking structure over existing parking are also included. The addition and existing building mechanical and electrical systems will be designed for a 40-year minimum life in accordance with DoD criteria. Offers are due approximately seven days following solicitation release on or around February 6, 2020 on beta.sam.gov. Award will be made to the responsible offeror providing the best overall value determined through a best value tradeoff process.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Attachment 7 - Bid Schedule.pdf PDF
W91236-20-R-0007.pdf PDF
Attachment 5- Letter of Commitment.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

Text version

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

ATTACHMENT 4

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

(To Be Used by the Government to Check References)

Contractor: Contract No.:

Subcontract No. (if applicable):

POC: Title:

(Name) (Title)

(Agency, Telephone No., Email & Facsimile No.)

If conducting a telephone interview:

“Hello, I am . I am calling in reference to Contract with a company called . My questions will pertain to the contractor’s record of past, which is defined as within the past eight years, and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. A summary of this discussion may be sent to you for your records. The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective

DATA QUESTIONS

Contract Type: Period of Performance: .

(i.e., Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build))

Total Contract Amount:

Nature and extent of the effort (i.e. scope of the effort performed by the contractor, type of tasks involved, and types of personnel (skills/expertise) utilized):

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

A. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of overall technical quality?

(Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

B. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of its responsiveness to changes in technical direction? (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

C. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of effectiveness/thoroughness in planning his operations? (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

D. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of obtaining and retaining well qualified managers and craftsman? (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

E. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of ensuring his subcontractors provided adequate staffing? (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

F. How was the contractor’s performance in terms of meeting milestones/schedules and reporting requirements and its responsiveness to changing schedules and priorities?

(Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

G. How was the contractor’s performance in regard to financial/cost management and reporting? (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable):

H. Were there any cost overruns incurred under the contract? (Yes/No):

1. If Yes, were the overruns due to the fault of the contractor? (Yes/No):

2. If Yes, what was the magnitude (% of increase) and cause of the overrun(s)?

I. When Contractor encountered problems, did he provide recommended solutions for them? (Yes/No):

J. Would you choose to work with the contractor again if given the opportunity? (Yes/ No):

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

K. Did the contractor’s quality control organization find and correct most deficiencies?

(Yes/No):

L. With respect to the contractor’s performance under this contract, are there any additional comments you wish to make that were not addressed above?

Name of SSEB Member conducting the interview:

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